• 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!

Judge dismisses climate-change lawsuit against 5 oil giants

KLATTU

KLATTU

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 2, 2013
Messages
19,259
Reaction score
6,899
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
KLATTU said:
Sanity prevails

federal judge on Monday dismissed lawsuits by the cities of San Francisco and Oakland alleging that five of the world’s largest oil companies should pay to protect the cities’ residents from the impacts of climate change
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/j...hange-lawsuit-against-5-oil-giants-2018-06-25
.

Hey maybe they can appeal and get a Supreme Court ruling.
Or not.:surrender
Click to expand...

From your article:

“The benefits of fossil fuels are worldwide,” he wrote. “The problem deserves a solution on a more vast scale than can be supplied by a district judge or jury in a public nuisance case.”
Click to expand...

I agree. And I think it was BS to sue for such. Funny thing is I would bet dollar to donuts that most of the officials that brought forth this law suit uses some form of fossil fuel in their every day lives.
 
Here's the text of the ruling:

https://www.eenews.net/assets/2018/06/26/document_cw_02.pdf

The analysis begins:

"The issue is not over science. All parties agree that fossil fuels have led to global warming and ocean rise and will continue to do so, and that eventually the navigable waters of the United States will intrude upon Oakland and San Francisco. The issue is a legal one — whether these producers of fossil fuels should pay for anticipated harm that will eventually flow from a rise in sea level."
 
Judge Alsup said that climate change was an issue of global importance but that the companies were not solely at fault. “Our industrial revolution and the development of our modern world has literally been fueled by oil and coal,” he wrote. “Without those fuels, virtually all of our monumental progress would have been impossible.”

In light of that, he asked: “Would it really be fair to now ignore our own responsibility in the use of fossil fuels and place the blame for global warming on those who supplied what we demanded? Is it really fair, in light of those benefits, to say that the sale of fossil fuels was unreasonable?”

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/25/climate/climate-change-lawsuit-san-francisco-oakland.html
 
Surface Detail said:
Here's the text of the ruling:

https://www.eenews.net/assets/2018/06/26/document_cw_02.pdf

The analysis begins:

"The issue is not over science. All parties agree that fossil fuels have led to global warming and ocean rise and will continue to do so, and that eventually the navigable waters of the United States will intrude upon Oakland and San Francisco. The issue is a legal one — whether these producers of fossil fuels should pay for anticipated harm that will eventually flow from a rise in sea level."
Click to expand...

It was Chevron's legal strategy to accept the IPCC statements because they included declarations of uncertainty helpful to the defense.
 
Jack Hays said:
It was Chevron's legal strategy to accept the IPCC statements because they included declarations of uncertainty helpful to the defense.
Click to expand...

Yes, agreeing to be bound by the laws of nature probably did give something of a boost to Chevron's credibility. You could learn a lesson from them yourself.
 
Surface Detail said:
Yes, agreeing to be bound by the laws of nature probably did give something of a boost to Chevron's credibility. You could learn a lesson from them yourself.
Click to expand...

Chevron exploited the large gap between advocates' alarmist claims and the uncertainty the IPCC has been grudgingly compelled to acknowledge.
 
Jack Hays said:
Chevron exploited the large gap between advocates' alarmist claims and the uncertainty the IPCC has been grudgingly compelled to acknowledge.
Click to expand...

What makes you think the IPCC has been grudgingly compelled to acknowledge uncertainty? Have you any idea at all how scientists work? Every scientific paper published gives indications of the level of certainty of its results. This is not optional. Once again, your ignorance and paranoia astonishes me!
 
Surface Detail said:
What makes you think the IPCC has been grudgingly compelled to acknowledge uncertainty? Have you any idea at all how scientists work? Every scientific paper published gives indications of the level of certainty of its results. This is not optional. Once again, your ignorance and paranoia astonishes me!
Click to expand...

You have apparently not kept up with the literature.

". . . Climate science, and particularly assessments of climate science such as the IPCC, needs to do a much better job of characterizing and reasoning about uncertainty. The events of the past year that have challenged the credibility of climate science are symptoms of an enraged uncertainty monster."



[h=2]Uncertainty Monster paper in press[/h][FONT=&quot]Posted on September 10, 2011 by curryja | 289 comments
by Judith Curry My paper “Climate Science and the Uncertainty Monster” is in press at the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.

289 Comments
Posted in Uncertainty

[/FONT]
[h=2]Taming the Uncertainty Monster[/h][FONT=&quot]Posted on June 16, 2011 by curryja | 54 comments
by Judith Curry The concluding section in my draft paper on “Climate Science and the Uncertainty Monster” (discussed previously on this thread) is entitled “Taming the uncertainty monster.”

54 Comments
Posted in Uncertainty

[/FONT]
[h=2]The Uncertainty Monster[/h][FONT=&quot]Posted on September 22, 2010 by curryja | 235 comments
by Judith Curry Notions of uncertainty range from everyday usage in common parlance to specific definitions appearing in the philosophical and scientific literature.

[/FONT]
 
Jack Hays said:
You have apparently not kept up with the literature.

". . . Climate science, and particularly assessments of climate science such as the IPCC, needs to do a much better job of characterizing and reasoning about uncertainty. The events of the past year that have challenged the credibility of climate science are symptoms of an enraged uncertainty monster."



[h=2]Uncertainty Monster paper in press[/h][FONT=&quot]Posted on September 10, 2011 by curryja | 289 comments
by Judith Curry My paper “Climate Science and the Uncertainty Monster” is in press at the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.

289 Comments
Posted in Uncertainty

[/FONT]
[h=2]Taming the Uncertainty Monster[/h][FONT=&quot]Posted on June 16, 2011 by curryja | 54 comments
by Judith Curry The concluding section in my draft paper on “Climate Science and the Uncertainty Monster” (discussed previously on this thread) is entitled “Taming the uncertainty monster.”

54 Comments
Posted in Uncertainty

[/FONT]
[h=2]The Uncertainty Monster[/h][FONT=&quot]Posted on September 22, 2010 by curryja | 235 comments
by Judith Curry Notions of uncertainty range from everyday usage in common parlance to specific definitions appearing in the philosophical and scientific literature.

[/FONT]
Click to expand...

Please learn to read. Those articles are simply quibbling with the level of uncertainty already expressed in the IPCC reports.
 
Surface Detail said:
Please learn to read. Those articles are simply quibbling with the level of uncertainty already expressed in the IPCC reports.
Click to expand...

Yes, and driving the IPCC to expand on that. Note the posts are seven years old, and the pressure had an effect.
 
The Eco-Hypcrisy of sanctimonious Leftists in DEMANDING that everyone else cut back their carbon footprint by 80% compared to 1990 levels, while:

1. Eco-Hypocrites continue to fly and drive everywhere, all the time, from *academics* to Limousine Liberals of Hollywood, to Barack Obama, to Richard Branson, to Al Gore, to National Geographic management, which preaches climate change hysteria in every single issue, while advertising for hundreds of world tours, including "around the world by private jet" which sets you back $84,995.

2. They maliciously attack and sue Big Oil whose products they consume far more than the common folk to who they lecture and pontificate,

3. Insist on costly *solutions* to this non-problem which will hurt the poorest the most,

4. Fly and drive to Earth Day hypocrite fests, protest marches to scream and shout about anything,

5. Continue with life as usual, just blabbing their hypocrisy as they go.
 
Surface Detail said:
What makes you think the IPCC has been grudgingly compelled to acknowledge uncertainty? Have you any idea at all how scientists work? Every scientific paper published gives indications of the level of certainty of its results. This is not optional. Once again, your ignorance and paranoia astonishes me!
Click to expand...

It's called SWAG when they claim certainty. Scientific Wild A$$ Guess.
 
Surface Detail said:
Please learn to read. Those articles are simply quibbling with the level of uncertainty already expressed in the IPCC reports.
Click to expand...

Jack Hays said:
Yes, and driving the IPCC to expand on that. Note the posts are seven years old, and the pressure had an effect.
Click to expand...

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]A must read: A Veneer of Certainty Stoking Climate Alarm[/h][FONT=&quot]In Private, Climate Scientists Are Much Less Certain than They Tell the Public By Rupert Darwall* Foreword by Judith Curry, President of the Climate Forecast Applications Network and former Professor and Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology While the nations of the world met in Bonn…
[/FONT]
November 30, 2017 in Opinion.
 
Surface Detail said:
Yes, agreeing to be bound by the laws of nature probably did give something of a boost to Chevron's credibility. You could learn a lesson from them yourself.
Click to expand...

I almost entirely accept the IPCC science (not the executive summary) and for that I'm considered a skeptic. The warmists are not really in agreement with the IPCC science.
 
LowDown said:
I almost entirely accept the IPCC science (not the executive summary) and for that I'm considered a skeptic. The warmists are not really in agreement with the IPCC science.
Click to expand...

I accept the IPCC reports as being representative of the current state of climate science, and I'm glad you do too. Could you give an example of a part of the executive summary that you do not accept?
 
Fifth Report: Summary for Policy Makers:

"Without additional efforts to reduce GHG emissions beyond those in place today, emissions growth is
expected to persist driven by growth in global population and economic activities. Baseline scenarios, those
without additional mitigation, result in global mean surface temperature increases in 2100 from 3.7°C to
4.8°C compared to pre-industrial levels."

This statement, like most of the rest of the summary, relies on the most extreme climate scenario examined in the WG1 report, which provided a much wider range of possible outcomes. I disagree with that emphasis, especially considering the most recent work reported on models.
 
LowDown said:
Fifth Report: Summary for Policy Makers:

"Without additional efforts to reduce GHG emissions beyond those in place today, emissions growth is
expected to persist driven by growth in global population and economic activities. Baseline scenarios, those
without additional mitigation, result in global mean surface temperature increases in 2100 from 3.7°C to
4.8°C compared to pre-industrial levels."

This statement, like most of the rest of the summary, relies on the most extreme climate scenario examined in the WG1 report, which provided a much wider range of possible outcomes. I disagree with that emphasis, especially considering the most recent work reported on models.
Click to expand...

Given that it is a summary for policy makers, it doen't seem unreasonable to point out the likely consequences of failure to make policies to reduce emissions. And, obviously, the scenario in which policy makers fail to make such policies is the most extreme one.
 
KLATTU said:
Sanity prevails

federal judge on Monday dismissed lawsuits by the cities of San Francisco and Oakland alleging that five of the world’s largest oil companies should pay to protect the cities’ residents from the impacts of climate change
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/j...hange-lawsuit-against-5-oil-giants-2018-06-25
.

Hey maybe they can appeal and get a Supreme Court ruling.
Or not.:surrender
Click to expand...

I think they will need to wait for Trump to get this nomination approved and the next three as well. :)
 
Kal'Stang said:
From your article:



I agree. And I think it was BS to sue for such. Funny thing is I would bet dollar to donuts that most of the officials that brought forth this law suit uses some form of fossil fuel in their every day lives.
Click to expand...

Way off topic on this, but when that dollars to donuts thing was coined, donuts probably cost way less than a dollar.

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