Climate Trial: A BLOODY NOSE FOR WARMISTS – Federal Judge Dismissed Claim Of A Conspiracy To Suppress ‘Global Warming’ Science
Climate Depot Round-Up on Climate Change ‘Trial’
‘Global warming’ on trial: Prominent scientists submit climate skeptics’ case to federal court – Three prominent skeptical scientists have submitted their climate report to the federal court for the landmark March 21 climate science on trial hearing. See: Federal court will hold first-ever hearing on ‘climate change’ science – “A federal judge in San Francisco has ordered parties in a landmark global warming lawsuit to hold what could be the first-ever U.S. court hearing on the science of climate change.” Full submitted skeptical scientists report: Tutorial Professor Presentation
Federal Judge Dismissed Claim Of A Conspiracy To Suppress ‘Global Warming’ Science – By MICHAEL BASTASCH – A federal judge overseeing a lawsuit dismissed a core section plaintiffs brought in the case — oil companies conspired to cover up global warming science. San Francisco and Oakland filed suit against five major companies, including Exxon and Chevron, demanding money for damages global warming allegedly caused. A core component of their suit is fossil fuel companies “engaged in a large-scale, sophisticated advertising and public relations campaign” to promote fossil fuels while they “knew” their products would contribute to “dangerous global warming.” The cities’ suits against oil companies, however, do not show an industry conspiracy to suppress climate science from the public, U.S. District Judge William Alsup said, according to journalists who attended the hearing. Alsup said plaintiffs “shows nothing of the sort” regarding some sort of conspiracy against science, Conservative journalist Phelim McAleer tweeted. “Alsup dismissing the idea that there was some sort of conspiracy,” environmental journalist Amy Westervelt tweeted.
Climate Trial: A BLOODY NOSE FOR GLOBAL WARMING ALARMISTS – 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…
Photo: Ann McElhinney & Phelim McAleer covering the trial in San Francisco
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”.
People cause climate change, but don’t blame big oil, industry tells judge
The Great Non-Debate: Oil Giant Accepts ‘Climate Consensus’, Denies Responsibility for Warming – “Chevron accepts the consensus in the scientific communities on climate change,” said attorney Theodore Boutrous, of the firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. “There’s no debate about climate science.”
(Hot) Air Let Out of California’s Climate Change Lawsuit – Class Dismissed – By Dr. WILLIAM M BRIGGS – 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.
Climate ‘Deniers’ Win Big in San Francisco Courts! Facts Trump Fake Science
Climate Change Judge Wanted to Know What Caused the Ice Age
Pathetic! Big oil companies lay out the science of climate change in court – ‘Both sides in this case agree that climate change is caused by humans’
Monckton: Global warming on trial and the elementary error of physics that caused the global warming scare
Warmists hopeful for shakedown: ‘Can climate litigation save the world?’ – ‘Climate litigation hopes to force govts to act & companies to pay…for causing global warming’
‘False’: Mike Shellenberger takes down the ‘The Exxon Climate Denial Myth’ – Exxon in ‘many cases advocated for climate policy!’ – Mike Shellenberger, the President Breakthrough Institute, and a man who Time Magazine called ‘Hero of the Environment’: ‘The picture painted of Exxon seeking out & funding “climate change deniers” to mislead public & prevent climate policy is false.’ ‘The picture painted by @insideclimate is that Exxon was paying people to lie about climate while acknowledging it privately…In reality, Exxon funded conservative think tanks that were mostly *not* “climate deniers” — & in many cases advocate climate policy!’ But it was always obvious from looking at who Exxon funded that vanishingly few people were “climate change deniers.” A vast Exxon conspiracy to deceive public about climate turns out to be… a lukewarmish NYT ad & sunspots research.’ ‘Even if all $2M Exxon spent was on “deniers” — & it mostly wasn’t — drop in bucket compared to green $$’