CO2 emissions rose because of a 2.1 percent increase in global energy demand, 70 percent of which was met by fossil fuels, especially natural gas and coal-fired electricity. China’s 6 percent jump in electricity demand was met by coal, IEA reported...A major reason emissions rose was because the world economy grew 3.7 percent last year. Higher economic growth means more emissions, despite claims that economic growth had begun to “decouple” from greenhouse gas emissions.
Phelim McAleer reports: Attempt to sue oil companies backfires as judge calls out their exaggerations and deceptions..."
The judge rebuked professor for presenting a misleading and exaggerated illustration regarding the current amount of Co2 in the atmosphere. Oxford Professor Myles Allen was illustrating how much Co2 was now in the atmosphere when the judge rebuked him for using a misleading illustration that made the atmosphere appear to have more than 400 parts per million of Co2. “It’s 400 parts per million but you make it look like it’s 10,000 part per million,” he said. Professor Allen was forced to admit his slide was misleading. "Your honor is quite right,” he agreed...
Judge Alsup also mocked the numerous times IPCC predictive models got the current climate trends wrong and catastrophic weather never arrived. Looking at several IPCC models and their relationship to reality the judge said to Chevron's lawyer: "So your point is that [IPCC] models overstate the problem. Instead of doom and gloom, it’s just gloom".
Chevron attorney Ted Boutrous didn’t dispute that humans are contributing to climate change. With support from fellow defendants ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, and ConocoPhillips, he said Chevron agreed with assessments by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, one of the world’s foremost authorities on the subject.
California thought there might have been some kind of conspiracy by oil companies to hide secrets about global warming...Aiding his honor were two friend-of-the-court briefs, one of which was led by Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, Willie Soon, David Legates, Yours Truly, and others. The other was from scientists William Happer, Steven E. Koonin, and Richard S. Lindzen. Happer and the others provided a lovely summary. 1. The climate is always changing; changes like those of the past half-century are common in the geologic record, driven by powerful natural phenomena 2. Human influences on the climate are a small (1%) perturbation to natural energy flows 3. It is not possible to tell how much of the modest recent warming can be ascribed to human influences 4. There have been no detrimental changes observed in the most salient climate variables and today’s projections of future changes are highly uncertain
Monckton’s (my) group had two straightforward points.
First result: … there is no “consensus” among scientists that recent global warming was chiefly anthropogenic, still less that unmitigated anthropogenic warming has been or will be dangerous or catastrophic …
Second result: … even if it be assumed [for the sake of argument] that all of the 0.8 [degree Celsius] global warming since anthropogenic influence first became potentially significant in 1950 was attributable to us, in the present century little more than 1.2 [C] of global warming is to be expected, not the 3.3 [C] that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had predicted.