San Francisco
Five American oil companies find themselves in a San Francisco courtroom. California v. Chevron is a civil action brought by the city attorneys of San Francisco and Oakland, who accuse the defendants of creating a “public nuisance” by contributing to climate change and of conspiring to cover it up so they could continue to profit.
No trial date has been set, but on March 21 the litigants gathered for a “climate change tutorial” ordered by Judge William Alsup —a prospect that thrilled climate-change alarmists. Excited spectators gathered outside the courtroom at 6 a.m., urged on by advocates such as the website Grist, which declared “Buckle up, polluters! You’re in for it now,” and likened the proceeding to the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial.
In the event, the hearing did not go well for the plaintiffs—and not for lack of legal talent. Steve W. Berman, who represented the cities, is a star trial lawyer who has made a career and a fortune suing corporations for large settlements, including the $200 billion-plus tobacco settlement in 1998.
“Until now, fossil fuel companies have been able to talk about climate science in political and media arenas where there is far less accountability to the truth,” Michael Burger of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University told Grist. The hearing did mark a shift toward accountability—but perhaps not in the way activists would have liked.
Judge Alsup started quietly. He flattered the plaintiffs’ first witness, Oxford physicist Myles Allen, by calling him a “genius,” but he also reprimanded Mr. Allen for using a misleading illustration to represent carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and a graph ostensibly about temperature rise that did not actually show rising temperatures.
Then the pointed questions began. Gary Griggs, an oceanographer at the University of California, Santa Cruz, struggled with the judge’s simple query: “What do you think caused the last Ice Age?”
The professor talked at length about a wobble in the earth’s orbit and went on to describe a period “before there were humans on the planet,” which “we call hothouse Earth.” That was when “all the ice melted. We had fossils of palm trees and alligators in the Arctic,” Mr. Griggs told the court. He added that at one time the sea level was 20 to 30 feet higher than today.
Mr. Griggs then recounted “a period called ‘snow ballers,’ ” when scientists “think the entire Earth was frozen due to changes in things like methane released from the ocean.”
Bear in mind these accounts of two apocalyptic climate events that occurred naturally came from a witness for plaintiffs looking to prove American oil companies are responsible for small changes in present-day climate.
The defendants’ lawyer, Theodore J. Boutrous Jr. , emphasized the little-discussed but huge uncertainties in reports from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the failure of worst-case climate models to pan out in reality. Or as Judge Alsup put it: “Instead of doom and gloom, it’s just gloom.”
Mr. Boutrous also noted that the city of San Francisco—in court claiming that rising sea levels imperil its future—recently issued a 20-year bond, whose prospectus asserted the city was “unable to predict whether sea level rise or other impacts of climate change or flooding from a major storm will occur.”
Judge Alsup was particularly scathing about the conspiracy claim. The plaintiffs alleged that the oil companies were in possession of “smoking gun” documents that would prove their liability; Mr. Boutrous said this was simply an internal summary of the publicly available 1995 IPCC report.
The judge said he read the lawsuit’s allegations to mean “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: ‘OK, 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. So they were on notice of what in IPCC said from that document, but it’s hard to say that they were secretly aware. By that point they knew. Everybody knew everything in the IPCC,” he stated.
Judge Alsup then turned to Mr. Berman: “If you want to respond, I’ll let you respond. . . . Anything you want to say?”
“No,” said the counsel to the plaintiffs. Whereupon Judge Alsup adjourned the proceedings.
Until now, environmentalists and friendly academics have found a receptive audience in journalists and politicians who don’t understand science and are happy to defer to experts. Perhaps this is why the plaintiffs seemed so ill-prepared for their first court outings with tough questions from an informed and inquisitive judge.
Activists have long claimed they want their day in court so that the truth can be revealed. Given last week’s poor performance, they may be the ones who inherit the wind.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-alarmists-may-inherit-the-wind-1522605526?shareToken=stb6d256fd06a545ca9a6def4124b2ca75&reflink=article_email_share
Originally posted by @lemon-limeRegardless of whether in this particular case the accused individuals are actually guilty of anything (and I personally have absolutely no interest nor opinion on that either way), that is totally irrelevant to what the evidence says about climate change (but not necessarily irrelevant vice versa). All you showed in you post there is a load of delusional and hateful anti-science propaganda crap against the science and its evidence that shows human activity is responsible for much if not most of the recent warming;
San Francisco
Five American oil companies find themselves in a San Francisco courtroom. California v. Chevron is a civil action brought by the city attorneys of San Francisco and Oakland, who accuse the defendants of creating a “public nuisance” by contributing to climate change and of conspiring to cover it up so they could continue to profit.
No ...[text shortened]... it-the-wind-1522605526?shareToken=stb6d256fd06a545ca9a6def4124b2ca75&reflink=article_email_share
-Cannot attack the evidence that contradicts your beliefs so attack the character of all people that accept that evidence (in your case by moronically labelling them all as "alarmists" just for merely accepting the evidence).
( Sound familiar? )
Your moronic post will not convert anyone here to your cause. You fail.
Originally posted by @humyCan't you debate without insulting people? I remember the first time you called me a moron and it was completely without provocation. You don't even know what you are talking about. Your opinion is politically driven and void of real science.
Regardless of whether in this particular case the accused individuals are actually guilty of anything (and I personally have absolutely no interest nor opinion on that either way), that is totally irrelevant to what the evidence says about climate change (but not necessarily irrelevant vice versa). All you showed in you post there is a load of delusional and h ...[text shortened]... ).
( Sound familiar? )
Your moronic post will not convert anyone here to your cause. You fail.
Here is a guy whose predictions are more accurate than governments based on solar activity.
Originally posted by @metal-brainyou mean by calling them "alarmists" (like he just did)?
Can't you debate without insulting people?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_standard
You don't even know what you are talking about. Your opinion is politically driven and void of real science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_standard
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy
Originally posted by @lemon-limeClimate change in the past occurred naturally, but does that mean humans cannot impact current climate change? If something in the past occurred naturally, does that mean it must happen the same way this time? If a past apocalypse occurred naturally, does that mean it is inevitable that mankind will have to endure it again? In my view, if we study and understand the causes then we can seek mitigating measures that might slow down, alleviate, or prevent the next ice age.
Bear in mind these accounts of two apocalyptic climate events that occurred naturally came from a witness for plaintiffs looking to prove American oil companies are responsible for small changes in present-day climate.
Originally posted by @wildgrassUsing their same 'logic': forest fires were always started from natural causes before humanity 'therefore' a forest fire cannot be started by a human. All forest fires have natural causes.
Climate change in the past occurred naturally, but does that mean humans cannot impact current climate change? If something in the past occurred naturally, does that mean it must happen the same way this time? If a past apocalypse occurred naturally, does that mean it is inevitable that mankind will have to endure it again? ...
Originally posted by @wildgrassOf course humans can impact climate. A nuclear war could have a devastating impact on the climate. That is not what we are talking about here though.
Climate change in the past occurred naturally, but does that mean humans cannot impact current climate change? If something in the past occurred naturally, does that mean it must happen the same way this time? If a past apocalypse occurred naturally, does that mean it is inevitable that mankind will have to endure it again? In my view, if we study and und ...[text shortened]... en we can seek mitigating measures that might slow down, alleviate, or prevent the next ice age.
The Pliocene had about the same co2 levels as today and the climate was far different. The reason for that is co2 has historically lagged behind temperatures. When cause and effect was temperature driven in the past it is illogical to assume co2 will drive temps in the same way. That is what Al Gore did and mislead people and now we have a lot of misinformed people alarmed about it.
I have said this many times before and I'll say it again, alarmists are greatly overestimating how much co2 warms the climate. That doesn't mean co2 is having no effect on climate, just that it isn't to the point that it should be a concern yet. We should monitor the climate in case that changes and to have a good historical data with the latest technologies.
I suggest that you find a climate model prediction that came as close to being right as possible using satellite temp data, NOT ground based temp data. Also, predicting ground temps accurately does not predict the climate, it predicts the heat island effect.
If you can meet that criteria you might convince me that climate modelers are not overestimating co2 warming in the atmosphere. I doubt you can, but give it a try.
Originally posted by @metal-brainIt sounds like you're saying there was a lot of other things different about the Pliocene compared to current climate (except CO2), or was everything else the same?
The Pliocene had about the same co2 levels as today and the climate was far different. The reason for that is co2 has historically lagged behind temperatures. When cause and effect was temperature driven in the past it is illogical to assume co2 will drive temps in the same way. That is what Al Gore did
CO2 lagging behind temperature makes total sense in the Pliocene. It does not make sense now, as we are digging up remnants of all ancient creatures and casting their carbon into the atmosphere. Obviously, in this context it would be silly if CO2 lagged behind temperature increases. This modern experiment has never been done before.
PS. Please stop invoking Al Gore. He's a lobbyist, not a scientist.
Originally posted by @metal-brainI'll meet your criteria, despite the fact that the data you presented was wholly inadequate and did not say anything close to what you said it did. Find me one quote from your data source that says what you were saying.
I suggest that you find a climate model prediction that came as close to being right as possible using satellite temp data, NOT ground based temp data. Also, predicting ground temps accurately does not predict the climate, it predicts the heat island effect.
If you can meet that criteria you might convince me that climate modelers are not overestimating co2 warming in the atmosphere. I doubt you can, but give it a try.
Let's start with this link: https://www.ucsusa.org/publications/ask/2013/climate-modeling.html
A quote from this article: "A study by Myles Allen and colleagues at Oxford University, for example, compared climate forecasts that begin in 1996 with the actual temperatures observed since. They found that the simulations accurately predicted the warming experienced in the past decade to within a few hundredths of a degree." [1]
I promise this is satellite data. The data they use as evidence for this is part of an exhaustive study published in Nature a few months ago. The piece in bold speaks directly to your assertion. Their big conclusion is that "...we do not find that model errors can be taken as evidence that global warming is over-projected by climate models. On the contrary, our results add to a broadening collection of research indicating that models that simulate today’s climate best tend to be the models that project the most global warming over the remainder of the twenty-first century. [note: In addition to their own analysis, they also cite 15 different references here if needed for confirmation]"
[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/nature24672
Originally posted by @humyAnd surely if humanity is incapable of "fighting" nature to create a more pleasant living environment for ourselves here on earth, then we would be incapable of building bridges or levees or reservoirs that extend the range of livable habitat.
Using their same 'logic': forest fires were always started from natural causes before humanity 'therefore' a forest fire cannot be started by a human. All forest fires have natural causes.
Originally posted by @humy"Can't you debate without insulting people?" MB
you mean by calling them "alarmists" (like he just did)?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_standard
You don't even know what you are talking about. Your opinion is politically driven and void of real science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_standard
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy
"you mean by calling them "alarmists" (like he just did)?" H
I didn't call them "alarmists". The author (a journalist) of the Wall Street Journal article I posted called them "alarmists". I don't work for the Wall Street Journal, and I'm not a journalist.
The most interesting part of this story (obviously not for you, but for me) was the fact that a liberal San Fransisco judge did not rubber stamp the plaintiff's complaint, but instead asked intelligent questions about evidence that would be presented at trial. This was not the trial, but rather a pre-trial tutorial to make sure everyone was up to speed on the evidence intended to be presented at trial.
Originally posted by @lemon-limeand yet you think nothing of posting such obviously biases and hateful statements against us as if they were your own.
I didn't call them "alarmists". The author (a journalist) of the Wall Street Journal article I posted called them "alarmists".
Originally posted by @humyDo you believe the judge was hateful and biased as well?
and yet you think nothing of posting such obviously biases and hateful statements against us as if they were your own.
If you (and the group you identity with) wish to avoid any criticism of the position you've taken on global warming, then you should probably stick with making your case in the court of public opinion.
Originally posted by @lemon-limeI don't want to avoid "criticism"; -and that doesn't excuse the straw mans, misrepresentations and lies just because you cannot stand us believing the science that says things against your beliefs.
If you (and the group you identity with) wish to avoid any criticism of the position you've taken on global warming, .
Originally posted by @wildgrassI saw nothing to indicate satellite data was used. All the first link said was surface temps. That could mean anything, including airports which are known for heat island effect.
I'll meet your criteria, despite the fact that the data you presented was wholly inadequate and did not say anything close to what you said it did. Find me one quote from your data source that says what you were saying.
Let's start with this link: https://www.ucsusa.org/publications/ask/2013/climate-modeling.html
A quote from this article: "A study ...[text shortened]... references here if needed for confirmation]"
[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/nature24672
Where is the data?