Clear the courtroom

A stunning victory in California, as Judge Alsup declines to validate global warming alarmism and delivers a big thumbs-up to the sceptics. A principal plank of the plaintiffs was that the oil companies had conspired to “cover up” global warming science; the judge said the plaintiffs showed “nothing of the sort”. The case is not over.

Well done Christopher Monckton for a last-minute assist.

More detail from Michael Bastasch.

Visits: 480

4 Thoughts on “Clear the courtroom

  1. Gary Kerkin on 27/03/2018 at 11:40 am said:

    Hardly a stunning victory, yet. As I understand it Judge Alsup rejected the conspiracy theory that the oil companies colluded to hide “the truth” from the public. His decision knocked out one aspect of the suit, but the substantive matter of the oil companies causing damages for which they are liable has yet to be heard. The “lecture” the Judge called for, and which Chevron provided, is but a preliminary to hearing the substantive charges. We have yet to see whether the assorted submissions such of those of Monckton, Lindzen et al, and etc will be taken into consideration.

    I think I’m right. Please correct me if I am not.

  2. Stephanie Hawking on 27/03/2018 at 11:20 pm said:

    The fact of the matter is the oil companies accept the IPCC reports, and have stated so publicly.

    The oil companies decline to be “helped” by the contrarians.

  3. Gary Kerkin on 28/03/2018 at 10:35 am said:

    The oil companies decline to be “helped” by the contrarians.

    Reports I have read about the “lecture” suggested that the other oil company representatives were nonplussed by the line taken by Chevron. Judge Alsup asked them if they wanted to contribute at this stage. Chevron indicated that it did not need/want input from the others.

    The court transcript of the “lecture” is interesting. The Judge interrupted the presenter, Dr Myles Robert Allen, frequently seeking understanding. I haven’t read it all—it is long. It can be found here

    So, it is not true to say that oil companies, other than Chevron, declined to be “helped” by climate scientists who do not agree with the AGW hypothesis. I think Stephanie has taken comments by Chevron as representing all oil companies.

  4. Barry Brill on 07/04/2018 at 7:18 pm said:

    The Judge was reacting to the Cities’ “smoking gun” 1996 memorandum that was pleaded as proving conspiracy because it was circulated amongst the oil companies and set out the most alarming/startling future outcomes of climate change. Turns out the memorandum only contained notes taken at an IPCC presentation of its Second Assessment Report (the one where Santer claimed an anthropogenic connection).

    So, of all the #ExxonKnew documents, the scariest of all was what the IPCC knew and had already publicised worldwide. What the oil companies knew – and did not trumpet loudly – was that the IPCC was exaggerating and the science was very uncertain.

    I particularly liked the Judges dry comment that “instead of being being gloom and doom, climate change seems to be only gloom”. This in response to Myles Allan admitting that the IPCC models had overstated future warming.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post Navigation