• 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

longview said:
Actually I do since I was responding to the comment,
"Why then are the defendants in this specific case accepting the science of anthropogenic global warming"
The reference was to the science of AGW.
Click to expand...

Again. Just ‘science’.
 
Jack Hays said:
From the link in #233:

. . . A case in point is the recent lawsuit brought by various municipalities and organizations in San Francisco against the major oil companies, charging that their not-so-benign neglect of the climate issue in their strategic planning and corporate communications was criminal in intent and consequences.
The successful defence used by the energy companies involved blanket reliance on the writings of the IPCC, which admits of greater uncertainty than Konsensus doctrine allows. The IPCC didn’t single out human emissions of greenhouse gases as a partial culprit for the current warming until relatively late in the game–and neither, say the energy companies, did they.
This has led the most apoplectic (not to say apocalyptic) of the climate brigade to start disparaging the IPCC, a prospect which should delight ye skeptics as much as we lukewarmers. It is a sign of the great splintering of the Konsensus, whereby the publication which served as the Bible of all the climate concerned will now be dissected and disputed by different groups with differing aims.
So no matter how often we are targeted with disparaging ‘isms,’ it will be as nothing compared to the coming climate schisms.
But that’s what happens with religions.

Matt Ridley:

Matt Ridley - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Ridley


Matthew White Ridley, 5th Viscount Ridley DL FRSL FMedSci (born 7 February 1958), commonly known as Matt Ridley, is a British journalist and businessman. Ridley is best known for his writings on science, the environment, and economics. He has written several science books including The Red Queen: Sex and the ...‎Career · ‎Patronage · ‎Publications · ‎Political and scientific views
Click to expand...

Speaking of Ridley, this is interesting:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0301008294900396
 
Threegoofs said:
Again. Just ‘science’.
Click to expand...
Again, not really!
Because the AGW proponents conflated the scientific portion of AGW
with the speculative portion of the concept of AGW.
It becomes necessary to separate the components of the concept into Science---and the speculation.
 
Jack Hays said:
From the link in #233:

. . . A case in point is the recent lawsuit brought by various municipalities and organizations in San Francisco against the major oil companies, charging that their not-so-benign neglect of the climate issue in their strategic planning and corporate communications was criminal in intent and consequences.
The successful defence used by the energy companies involved blanket reliance on the writings of the IPCC, which admits of greater uncertainty than Konsensus doctrine allows. The IPCC didn’t single out human emissions of greenhouse gases as a partial culprit for the current warming until relatively late in the game–and neither, say the energy companies, did they.
This has led the most apoplectic (not to say apocalyptic) of the climate brigade to start disparaging the IPCC, a prospect which should delight ye skeptics as much as we lukewarmers. It is a sign of the great splintering of the Konsensus, whereby the publication which served as the Bible of all the climate concerned will now be dissected and disputed by different groups with differing aims.
So no matter how often we are targeted with disparaging ‘isms,’ it will be as nothing compared to the coming climate schisms.
But that’s what happens with religions.

Matt Ridley:

Matt Ridley - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Ridley


Matthew White Ridley, 5th Viscount Ridley DL FRSL FMedSci (born 7 February 1958), commonly known as Matt Ridley, is a British journalist and businessman. Ridley is best known for his writings on science, the environment, and economics. He has written several science books including The Red Queen: Sex and the ...‎Career · ‎Patronage · ‎Publications · ‎Political and scientific views
Click to expand...

Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

Judging from all the various zigs and zags that have taken place this year in almost all the news we hear, the oil companies agreeing with the IPCC on the climate issue is the best move yet! How can anyone logically fight with someone who agrees with them? Brilliant! :mrgreen: It will be interesting to see what happens next, and more importantly, who's going to get the job of being the "Monsignor" doing the talking for the climate religion group; ie, the ones that preach gloom and doom if you disagree with them!

As they said in ancient Greece..."Let the Games Begin!"
 
polgara said:
Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

Judging from all the various zigs and zags that have taken place this year in almost all the news we hear, the oil companies agreeing with the IPCC on the climate issue is the best move yet! How can anyone logically fight with someone who agrees with them? Brilliant! :mrgreen: It will be interesting to see what happens next, and more importantly, who's going to get the job of being the "Monsignor" doing the talking for the climate religion group; ie, the ones that preach gloom and doom if you disagree with them!

As they said in ancient Greece..."Let the Games Begin!"
Click to expand...

Greetings Polgara.:2wave:

As in the French Revolution, the AGW zealots have begun to devour their own.:shock:
 
Jack Hays said:
Greetings Polgara.:2wave:

As in the French Revolution, the AGW zealots have begun to devour their own.:shock:
Click to expand...

Hope Springs eternal!:mrgreen:
Bon Appetit
 
Last edited:
longview said:
Again, not really!
Because the AGW proponents conflated the scientific portion of AGW
with the speculative portion of the concept of AGW.
It becomes necessary to separate the components of the concept into Science---and the speculation.
Click to expand...

Hence the concept of ‘denier’.

It’s science. Not ‘evolutionary science’ or ‘gravity science’ or ‘allopathic medicine science’.
 
Threegoofs said:
Hence the concept of ‘denier’.

It’s science. Not ‘evolutionary science’ or ‘gravity science’ or ‘allopathic medicine science’.
Click to expand...
That you do not understand the distinction, is not so surprising.
 
Somerville said:
Why then are the defendants in this specific case accepting the science of anthropogenic global warming if AGW is little more than a government-sponsored hoax?
Click to expand...

When there actually is any empirical and hence verifiable science of any kind supporting this scam I'll buy it . The rest is just politics :)
 
Last edited:

[h=1]USDOJ: Climate lawsuits ‘violate constitutional principles’[/h]From the “that’s going to leave a mark” department. By SPENCER WALRATH The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) last Thursday filed an amicus brief in the cases filed by San Francisco and Oakland against energy producers, slamming the lawsuits and asking the court for dismissal. The lawsuits seek financial “damages” from energy companies for the risks posed by climate change.…
Continue reading →
 
Climate cash
[h=1]“Was industrialisation worth it?” – California Climate Lawsuit[/h]Guest essay by Eric Worrall Californian local governments trying to sue Chevron, Exxon and other oil majors are facing some entertainingly direct questions from Judge Alsup, as he tries to determine why the plaintiffs think oil companies owe them compensation. Climate Change Judge’s Homework: Was Industrialization Worth It? By Kartikay Mehrotra 25 May 2018, 08:12…
 

[h=1]Largest Colorado green group won’t endorse Boulder climate lawsuit[/h]Matt Dempsey writes: The Denver Post nicely picks up on previous Western Wire reporting on Steyer’s involvement in Colorado legislative races and Dem Gov candidate not endorsing climate lawsuit. Perhaps the most surprising tidbit of info Conservation Colorado not endorsing Boulder climate lawsuit either. Key excerpts here: The four Democratic candidates for governor support neither…
Continue reading →
 
Environmentalists lied and committed serious crimes in their attack on Exxon.

Jo Nova

Chevron wins $38m from Environmentalists behaving badly: extortion, fraud, witness tampering, corrupt practices


May 30, 2018

EXCERPT:

Score 1 for Chevron

In 2011, environmentalists won the worlds largest judgement against Chevron (holy moley $18 billion), but it turned out it was all based on fraud, fake witnesses and telling lies. Who would think people who say they like trees and human rights would be so self serving? The award has since been overturned — indeed the tables have turned, and last week Chevron was awarded $38 million in damages.

Strangely, bad behaviour of planet-saving-people doesn’t appear to rate highly in the news. Hands up who thinks the BBC/ABC/CBC would fail to mention it if environmentalists won a $38m suit against a money-laundering-witness-tampering oil company?

LINK
 
Opinion
[h=1]Speculative climate chaos v. indisputable fossil fuel benefits[/h]Federal judge tells climate litigants to tally the numerous blessings from fossil fuels since 1859 Guest essay by Paul Driessen and Roger Bezdek Judge William Alsup has a BS in engineering, has written computer programs for his ham radio hobby, delves deeply into the technical aspects of numerous cases before him, and even studied other…
 
Jack Hays said:
Opinion
[h=1]Speculative climate chaos v. indisputable fossil fuel benefits[/h]Federal judge tells climate litigants to tally the numerous blessings from fossil fuels since 1859 Guest essay by Paul Driessen and Roger Bezdek Judge William Alsup has a BS in engineering, has written computer programs for his ham radio hobby, delves deeply into the technical aspects of numerous cases before him, and even studied other…
Click to expand...

LOL...


In 1900, New York City’s 3.4 million people relied on 100,000 horses whose “tailpipes” emitted 2.5 million pounds of manure and 60,000 gallons of urine every day. Sanitation crews cleaned it up, dumped it mostly in local rivers, and hauled dead horses to rendering plants. Farmers devoted thousands of acres just to growing horse feed. Imagine what today’s 8.6 million NYC residents would require and emit.
​

LOL... How about the USA's over 300 million residents...
 
So the court, the plaintiffs, and the defendants all agree that it’s a basic, undeniable fact that AGW is real, is happening, and is leading to bad outcomes.

And the deniers somehow think it’s a ‘win’.
 
Rogue Valley said:
Chevron says it will not dispute climate science in U.S. lawsuit

102138970-chevron.530x298.jpg




Chevron stated in court that it supports modern climate science and scientific conclusions that humans are causing climate change. The fossil-fuel industry edifice may be cracking.
Click to expand...

Because they would lose.
 
Threegoofs said:
So the court, the plaintiffs, and the defendants all agree that it’s a basic, undeniable fact that AGW is real, is happening, and is leading to bad outcomes.

And the deniers somehow think it’s a ‘win’.
Click to expand...

The defense was based on the IPCC's own statements of uncertainty. That's enough for now. We'll be back for the rest later.
 
Jack Hays said:
The defense was based on the IPCC's own statements of uncertainty. That's enough for now. We'll be back for the rest later.
Click to expand...

Yeah....after we see the consequences are bad, or really bad, or catastrophic.

But you won’t care- you’ll be long gone by then.

Too bad you care more about Black Knighting then your grandkids...
 
Threegoofs said:
Yeah....after we see the consequences are bad, or really bad, or catastrophic.

But you won’t care- you’ll be long gone by then.

Too bad you care more about Black Knighting then your grandkids...
Click to expand...

I do what I do on behalf of my grandchildren. The good news is that upcoming years of cooling will erase the credibility of the AGW hypothesis.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom