The judge in a federal climate change lawsuit wants a science tutorial

The judge in a federal climate change lawsuit wants a science tutorial

The judge in a federal climate change lawsuit wants a science tutorial
Here are answers to eight questions the judge wants to address during his climate crash course.
By Umair Irfan on March 21, 2018

Nine cities across the United States, including New York and San Francisco, have taken the bold step of filing lawsuits against oil companies for damages stemming from climate change, arguing they are under threat from sea level rise and increasing heat waves.

Unlike previous cases where climate change has gone to court, the science itself isn’t on trial. In fact, the oil companies largely agree with the plaintiffs on the science and humanity’s role in rising temperatures. What will be debated here is the question of liability for the impacts of climate change, a much murkier legal issue and one with huge financial consequences for the energy sector.

To prepare for it, William Alsup, the judge presiding over two of the lawsuits — filed by San Francisco and Oakland against Royal Dutch Shell, BP, ConocoPhillips, Chevron, and Exxon Mobil — has scheduled a five-hour tutorial on climate science this Wednesday.

The tutorial is a big deal: It will set a federal judicial precedent establishing the facts of the mechanisms of global warming.

Click to expand...

The judge in a federal climate change lawsuit wants a science tutorial - Vox

This could be interesting. Amicus briefs have been sent by many prominent climate scientists and organizations to help teach the judge about the basics of climate change. And deniers have supplied briefs from fairly nutty individuals in defense.

The funny thing is that the oil companies won’t even contest the existence of fossil fuel induced global warming.

Chevron, oil companies will tell federal judge climate change is real | The Sacramento Bee

Threegoofs said:

The judge in a federal climate change lawsuit wants a science tutorial

The judge in a federal climate change lawsuit wants a science tutorial
Here are answers to eight questions the judge wants to address during his climate crash course.
By Umair Irfan on March 21, 2018


The judge in a federal climate change lawsuit wants a science tutorial - Vox

This could be interesting. Amicus briefs have been sent by many prominent climate scientists and organizations to help teach the judge about the basics of climate change. And deniers have supplied briefs from fairly nutty individuals in defense.

The funny thing is that the oil companies won’t even contest the existence of fossil fuel induced global warming.

Chevron, oil companies will tell federal judge climate change is real | The Sacramento Bee

Click to expand...

I hope this tutorial becomes required reading in every educational institution in the USA. "Money talks" and has distorted the realities of a simple math question i.e. Anthropomorphic Global Warming.
/

Don’t know why any of this is nessecary...

I have it on good authority from the President of the United States that:

Wow i can't believe that a judge let this case continue.

according to the EPA simple respiration adds about 8% of human contributed CO2.
maybe we should sue these people for breathing too much.

this is the problem with zealots and econuts.

ludin said:

Wow i can't believe that a judge let this case continue.

according to the EPA simple respiration adds about 8% of human contributed CO2.
maybe we should sue these people for breathing too much.

this is the problem with zealots and econuts.

Click to expand...

Wow. What a spectacular demonstration of your profound ignorance on the topic.

Wow.

Threegoofs said:

Wow. What a spectacular demonstration of your profound ignorance on the topic.

Wow.

Click to expand...

Not really.

I understand it just fine. econuts being econuts.

I find it hard to sue a company over something that the earth is supposed to do.
last time i checked you can't sue someone over what is deemed an Act of God.

last time it was pretty much scientific fact that earth climate is supposed to change.
if it didn't i would be a bit worried.

unless you are a zealot then there is nothing weird or sinister going on.
earth is reacting the way that it should and doing what it naturally does.

but this has been proven to you time and time again and well you ignore it because that is what zealots do.

however it is fact that respiration contributes at least 8% to man made co2.
so i guess we can sue these people for breathing and contributing to climate change.

you should be on board with that.

ludin said:

Not really.

I understand it just fine. econuts being econuts.

I find it hard to sue a company over something that the earth is supposed to do.
last time i checked you can't sue someone over what is deemed an Act of God.

last time it was pretty much scientific fact that earth climate is supposed to change.
if it didn't i would be a bit worried.

unless you are a zealot then there is nothing weird or sinister going on.
earth is reacting the way that it should and doing what it naturally does.

but this has been proven to you time and time again and well you ignore it because that is what zealots do.

however it is fact that respiration contributes at least 8% to man made co2.
so i guess we can sue these people for breathing and contributing to climate change.

you should be on board with that.

Click to expand...

You think breathing contributes to higher atmospheric levels of CO2.

That’s deeply idiotic.

The main causes of climate change are El Nino and La Nina, neither of which are manmade. For example, El Nino is a warm body of ocean water that often appears in the Pacific Ocean near Peru. This and changes of climate were recorded by the Incan Indians centuries ago. It is not new or manmade. The impact of the El Nino is to alter the thermal gradients of the pacific ocean so weather patterns begin to shift. In El Nino years California tends to have a wetter than normal winter, and a very dry summer.

A team of earth scientists in the 1980's, recorded seismic activity under the El Nino. The conclusion they drew was the El Nino, which has been around for centuries, is due to under ocean seismic activity. The plate tectonics and seismic activity gives off hot molten magna and gases. This material heat the deep ocean water, and even causes warm water to rise to the surface; El Nino pool.

The underwater heating also causes some of the dissolved ocean CO2, to be released. CO2 is less soluble in warm water. This extra CO2 contributes to the greenhouse gases. This has been noticed by fishermen for centuries. During El Nino years, their fishing waters are often dead, due to the excess heat and gases.

The El Nino pool then causes changes in weather patterns, that we call climate change. Below is a link based on the latest seismic data and analysis from 2017. It turns out, the extra heat is coming from the center of the earth; mantle. All the models for climate change are way too high, because they assume to much impact from manmade. They lump manmade with this natural affect as the cause. This results in overblown assumptions which are always too high.

Further Proof El Niños are Fueled by Deep-Sea Geological Heat Flow ? Plate climatology

Threegoofs said:

The judge in a federal climate change lawsuit wants a science tutorial

The judge in a federal climate change lawsuit wants a science tutorial
Here are answers to eight questions the judge wants to address during his climate crash course.
By Umair Irfan on March 21, 2018


The judge in a federal climate change lawsuit wants a science tutorial - Vox

This could be interesting. Amicus briefs have been sent by many prominent climate scientists and organizations to help teach the judge about the basics of climate change. And deniers have supplied briefs from fairly nutty individuals in defense.

The funny thing is that the oil companies won’t even contest the existence of fossil fuel induced global warming.

Chevron, oil companies will tell federal judge climate change is real | The Sacramento Bee

Click to expand...

The problem is going to be proving cause and effect vs the shakedown motive from the government.

You have to prove that environmental change was caused by oil companies.

Lastly, I would be wary of this being a “sue and settle” lawsuit to lay penalties on the cash flow - I.E. the gas pump tax. Browns latest gas tax is on the ballot and is expected to repeal his last tax. This could be one of those deals.

Do note this swamp judge also was the one who blocked DACA. So it’s all publicity and gamesmanship at the motoring public’s expense.

Threegoofs said:

The judge in a federal climate change lawsuit wants a science tutorial

The judge in a federal climate change lawsuit wants a science tutorial
Here are answers to eight questions the judge wants to address during his climate crash course.
By Umair Irfan on March 21, 2018


The judge in a federal climate change lawsuit wants a science tutorial - Vox

This could be interesting. Amicus briefs have been sent by many prominent climate scientists and organizations to help teach the judge about the basics of climate change. And deniers have supplied briefs from fairly nutty individuals in defense.

The funny thing is that the oil companies won’t even contest the existence of fossil fuel induced global warming.

Chevron, oil companies will tell federal judge climate change is real | The Sacramento Bee

Click to expand...

Smart judge.

ludin said:

Wow i can't believe that a judge let this case continue.

according to the EPA simple respiration adds about 8% of human contributed CO2.
maybe we should sue these people for breathing too much.

this is the problem with zealots and econuts.

Click to expand...

Well, it's less than 8%, and one item you are not looking at is that the source of the carbon that humans use is plant material, which got it in the form it's used in via photosynthesis, which removed c02 from the atmosphere. So, you are basically twisting things, and taking things out of context.

RAMOSS said:

Well, it's less than 8%, and one item you are not looking at is that the source of the carbon that humans use is plant material, which got it in the form it's used in via photosynthesis, which removed c02 from the atmosphere. So, you are basically twisting things, and taking things out of context.

Click to expand...

I am not twisting anything.

according to the IPCC man only contributes about 3-5% of the total carbon alotment in a year.
out of that 3-5% of that 8% of it is you breathing.

i am not taking anything about of context these are the number coming from the IPCC and the EPA.
so if we these people are really concerned about it they should hold their breath longer or not breathe as much.

It is time to stop this lunacy and this judge can do that right now.
Acts of God have never had a standing to sue in court.

ludin said:

Not really.

I understand it just fine. econuts being econuts.

I find it hard to sue a company over something that the earth is supposed to do.
last time i checked you can't sue someone over what is deemed an Act of God.

last time it was pretty much scientific fact that earth climate is supposed to change.
if it didn't i would be a bit worried.

unless you are a zealot then there is nothing weird or sinister going on.
earth is reacting the way that it should and doing what it naturally does.

but this has been proven to you time and time again and well you ignore it because that is what zealots do.

however it is fact that respiration contributes at least 8% to man made co2.
so i guess we can sue these people for breathing and contributing to climate change.

you should be on board with that.

Click to expand...

Your ignorance is absolutely astounding.

Jetboogieman said:

Your ignorance is absolutely astounding.

Click to expand...

what is ignorant is the lawsuit.
I am simply pointing out their stupidity.

no i am very much correct in the fact that earths climate is supposed to change.

ludin said:

Not really.

I understand it just fine. econuts being econuts.

I find it hard to sue a company over something that the earth is supposed to do.
last time i checked you can't sue someone over what is deemed an Act of God.

last time it was pretty much scientific fact that earth climate is supposed to change.
if it didn't i would be a bit worried.

unless you are a zealot then there is nothing weird or sinister going on.
earth is reacting the way that it should and doing what it naturally does.

but this has been proven to you time and time again and well you ignore it because that is what zealots do.

however it is fact that respiration contributes at least 8% to man made co2.
so i guess we can sue these people for breathing and contributing to climate change.

you should be on board with that.

Click to expand...

You constantly present yourself as some kind of legal expert who knows exactly what the proper result is in every single legal case discussed here. You pretty much never know what you're talking about or even what the basic facts are. Take the prior declarations you made about the DACA suits. You kept insisting that there was no case because the only thing that mattered is that Trump has authority to rescind EOs.

You didn't have the slightest clue that, actually, what implemented DACA was a memo. You didn't even know that the Administrative Procedure Act existed. And so you most certainly did not know that the issue in those cases was whether or not DHS complied with the APA in rescinding the memo.

But you just kept typing.


I feel like a math teacher watching someone insist that 2+2 = 5, and everyone who disagrees is a smelly liberalface.

Just stop. You never have a clue. You're not a climate scientist, and you're most certainly not a civil attorney who specializes in this area. So stop pretending you know what the right answer is for this judge.

Mr Person said:

You constantly present yourself as some kind of legal expert who knows exactly what the proper result is in every single legal case discussed here. You pretty much never know what you're talking about or even what the basic facts are. Take the prior declarations you made about the DACA suits. You kept insisting that there was no case because the only thing that mattered is that Trump has authority to rescind EOs.

You didn't have the slightest clue that, actually, what implemented DACA was a memo. You didn't even know that the Administrative Procedure Act existed. And so you most certainly did not know that the issue in those cases was whether or not DHS complied with the APA in rescinding the memo.

But you just kept typing.


I feel like a math teacher watching someone insist that 2+2 = 5, and everyone who disagrees is a smelly liberalface.

Just stop. You never have a clue. You're not a climate scientist, and you're most certainly not a civil attorney who specializes in this area. So stop pretending you know what the right answer is for this judge.

Click to expand...

He’s the personification of Dunning Kruger

jet57 said:

Smart judge.

Click to expand...

He's got an engineering degree. Bad news for the climate fraudsters who feed on ignorance.

Threegoofs said:

He’s the personification of Dunning Kruger

Click to expand...

What did dunning-kruger have to say about the people challenging the knowledgeable experts in phrenological science?

"It is a scholarly problem that will seemingly never be solved: what do we call those practices that we no longer consider sciences?"

Click to expand...

Can I then sue governments that have allowed and encouraged the exploitation of fossil fuels?

Update:

The ‘tutorial’ took place in court today.

Neither side disputed the fact that AGW was real, and an impending problem.

The Latest: Chevron lawyer: No debate about climate science - NY Daily News

Guess they needed real nutjobs to take an opposing stance, since that’s about the only core the deniers have left.

Threegoofs said:

Update:

The ‘tutorial’ took place in court today.

Neither side disputed the fact that AGW was real, and an impending problem.

The Latest: Chevron lawyer: No debate about climate science - NY Daily News

Guess they needed real nutjobs to take an opposing stance, since that’s about the only core the deniers have left.

Click to expand...

This is the Neville Chamberlain approach to "climate science:" Just give them the Sudetenland and they'll be satisfied, they won't want even bigger pieces of us later.

What does this scraping, obsequious, oily lawyer know of anything?

I'm past all that, this is what I have to say:

"I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat."

"We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. We have before us many, many long months of struggle and of suffering. You ask, what is our policy? I will say: It is to wage war, by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us; to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark and lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy. You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word: victory. Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival. Let that be realised."

Click to expand...

Mr Person said:

You constantly present yourself as some kind of legal expert who knows exactly what the proper result is in every single legal case discussed here. You pretty much never know what you're talking about or even what the basic facts are. Take the prior declarations you made about the DACA suits. You kept insisting that there was no case because the only thing that mattered is that Trump has authority to rescind EOs.

You didn't have the slightest clue that, actually, what implemented DACA was a memo. You didn't even know that the Administrative Procedure Act existed. And so you most certainly did not know that the issue in those cases was whether or not DHS complied with the APA in rescinding the memo.

But you just kept typing.


I feel like a math teacher watching someone insist that 2+2 = 5, and everyone who disagrees is a smelly liberalface.

Just stop. You never have a clue. You're not a climate scientist, and you're most certainly not a civil attorney who specializes in this area. So stop pretending you know what the right answer is for this judge.

Click to expand...

Deeeeeeeeee..........................






Molished