• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Chevron says it will not dispute climate science in U.S. lawsuit

Threegoofs said:
You misunderstand.

They don’t believe your delusion, they accept the IPCC, which clearly states that AGW is a problem. A major problem.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Chevron's lawyer cited the IPCC, but what you refuse to see, is that the science portion of the IPCC still
has a very large uncertainty, so one could agree with the Science portion, and still conclude that AGW is of little concern.
 
longview said:
Chevron's lawyer cited the IPCC, but what you refuse to see, is that the science portion of the IPCC still
has a very large uncertainty, so one could agree with the Science portion, and still conclude that AGW is of little concern.
Click to expand...

He didn’t cite the ‘science portion’ of IPCC (how the **** do future projections by scientists not count as the ‘science portion’, anyway??) he cited the IPCC and specifically stated that they accept it as a guide to reduce future climate change.

Your delusions are your own. Don’t project them on others.
 
longview said:
Chevron's lawyer cited the IPCC, but what you refuse to see, is that the science portion of the IPCC still
has a very large uncertainty, so one could agree with the Science portion, and still conclude that AGW is of little concern.
Click to expand...

They continue to ignore several devastating modeling scenario failures.

Ignore the failed:

Per Decade warming trend prediction/projection

The DECREASE in Tornado counts

The "hot spot" never shows up

Less snow and more rain, freezing rain

Refugees
 
Threegoofs said:
This is literally pure fantasy.

The hearing yesterday was a ‘tutorial’ for the judge. He didn’t even hear the case, much less rule on anything.

Man. Gullibility is awash at WUWT, as usual.
Click to expand...

Sure. Let's see how they can proceed without the bogus "conspiracy" claim.
 
Threegoofs said:
He didn’t cite the ‘science portion’ of IPCC (how the **** do future projections by scientists not count as the ‘science portion’, anyway??) he cited the IPCC and specifically stated that they accept it as a guide to reduce future climate change.

Your delusions are your own. Don’t project them on others.
Click to expand...
I don't need delusions, I have data!
The data supports only a low CO2 climate sensitivity, but still within the IPCC enormous range,
therefore I agree with the scientific portion of the IPCC report.
My point is that someone can state the IPCC is correct with the science, and still say that CO2 is of little concern.
The two ideas are not exclusionary.
 
Jack Hays said:
Sure. Let's see how they can proceed without the bogus "conspiracy" claim.
Click to expand...

I think the defense should subpoena Michael Mann to be cross examined under oath.
 
vegas giants said:
Chevron accepts the science
Click to expand...

No, they accept that climate wackos will now fill their tanks at Chevron: "come one come all, get ur gas from us, we charge a nickle more per gallon to help join in the 'fight' against what we do for a living "

"duh. err, i guess that makes sense"
 
One of the parties testified under oath that the sea level at the golden gate bridge will increase by between 1 to 3 feet by 2100.
This is strange since that tide gauge has been in a slight decline since 1998.
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=9414290
12 month average in 3/1998 .087 m
most recent(1/2018) 12 month average .0805 m.
You likely need greater than 12 months to show much of anything, but the sea levels at the
Golden Gate bridge appear to be dropping slightly.
 
longview said:
One of the parties testified under oath that the sea level at the golden gate bridge will increase by between 1 to 3 feet by 2100.
This is strange since that tide gauge has been in a slight decline since 1998.
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=9414290
12 month average in 3/1998 .087 m
most recent(1/2018) 12 month average .0805 m.
You likely need greater than 12 months to show much of anything, but the sea levels at the
Golden Gate bridge appear to be dropping slightly.
Click to expand...
Chevron accepts the science
 
vegas giants said:
Chevron accepts the science
Click to expand...

You are not too bright are you?

That alone will destroy the lawsuit since with the stupid conspiracy claim already thrown out, have no rational basis to attack the legal company anymore.

It doesn't matter what they believe, since the Conspiracy part is gone they can believe in the IPCC, or Peter Pan.
 
Sunsettommy said:
You are not too bright are you?

That alone will destroy the lawsuit since with the stupid conspiracy claim already thrown out, have no rational basis to attack the legal company anymore.

It doesn't matter what they believe, since the Conspiracy part is gone they can believe in the IPCC, or Peter Pan.
Click to expand...

Despite your personal attack.....Chevron accepts the science....as does every reputable scientific organization on the planet
 
vegas giants said:
Despite your personal attack.....Chevron accepts the science....as does every reputable scientific organization on the planet
Click to expand...

Maybe it is your weak eyes then since all I pointed out was this (which you didn't dispute)

That alone will destroy the lawsuit since with the stupid conspiracy claim already thrown out, have no rational basis to attack the legal company anymore.

It doesn't matter what they believe, since the Conspiracy part is gone they can believe in the IPCC, or Peter Pan.
Click to expand...

The Oil companies will win the case.
 
vegas giants said:
Chevron accepts the science
Click to expand...
As do I, but that is not the same thing as saying all of the catastrophic predictions are correct.
It also does not change the fact that according to NOAA and over a century of history,
the sea level at the Golden Gate may increase by about 6 inches, if at all, by 2100.
 
vegus giants writes

Chevron accepts the science....as does every reputable scientific organization on the planet
Click to expand...

The boring dumb consensus fallacy rises once again.

Many alarmists have learned to ignore parts of the IPCC reports in recent years because of clear identifiable modeling failures.

:lol:
 
longview said:
I don't need delusions, I have data!
The data supports only a low CO2 climate sensitivity, but still within the IPCC enormous range,
therefore I agree with the scientific portion of the IPCC report.
My point is that someone can state the IPCC is correct with the science, and still say that CO2 is of little concern.
The two ideas are not exclusionary.
Click to expand...

Nobody in this trial cares what you think.

Clearly, both sides are rational, so they accept the conclusions of the IPCC, like non-wing nuts generally do.
 
Sunsettommy said:
You are not too bright are you?

That alone will destroy the lawsuit since with the stupid conspiracy claim already thrown out, have no rational basis to attack the legal company anymore.

It doesn't matter what they believe, since the Conspiracy part is gone they can believe in the IPCC, or Peter Pan.
Click to expand...

It wasn’t ‘thrown out’.
 
Sunsettommy said:
vegus giants writes



The boring dumb consensus fallacy rises once again.

Many alarmists have learned to ignore parts of the IPCC reports in recent years because of clear identifiable modeling failures.

:lol:
Click to expand...

You are free to believe the moon landing was faked and that Bigfoot is married to Elvis if you like. Also things not supported by an reputable scientific agency.
 
longview said:
As do I, but that is not the same thing as saying all of the catastrophic predictions are correct.
It also does not change the fact that according to NOAA and over a century of history,
the sea level at the Golden Gate may increase by about 6 inches, if at all, by 2100.
Click to expand...

From Rising Seas is this chart showing what Mankind had to deal with early in the Interglacial period, from Doggerland to drowned coastal cities:
 

Attachments

  • sea_level_rise.jpg
    sea_level_rise.jpg
    36.5 KB · Views: 59
longview said:
As do I, but that is not the same thing as saying all of the catastrophic predictions are correct.
It also does not change the fact that according to NOAA and over a century of history,
the sea level at the Golden Gate may increase by about 6 inches, if at all, by 2100.
Click to expand...

That's nice. Chevron and other oil companies accept the science as does every reputable scientific agency on the planet. Time to reduce green house gasses.
 
vegas giants said:
You are free to believe the moon landing was faked and that Bigfoot is married to Elvis if you like. Also things not supported by an reputable scientific agency.
Click to expand...

:lol:

Now you go all over the map with baloney.

There have been too many consensus failures to ignore. That you continue to hang onto it make clear you have no idea how you are being hoodwinked. It is normally in the arena of politics that consensus is used, NOT in science research which runs on testable reproducible research.

Notice that you completely ignored this part:

Many alarmists have learned to ignore parts of the IPCC reports in recent years because of clear identifiable modeling failures.
Click to expand...

Snicker......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom