March 21, 2018, U.S. District Judge William Alsup held an unusual hearing in San Francisco, a 'tutorial' on climate change. Climatologists from the U.S. and England presented their findings to an attorney from Chevron, who was representing five big oil companies being sued by Oakland, San Francisco and other cities to recover costs associated with the changing climate. Chevron, Exxon, Shell, BP and Conoco Phillips are listed in the lawsuit. The cities are seeking costs to pay for sea walls and other shoreline defenses to protect against rising sea levels. Read the lawsuit below (7).
Myles Allen, head of the Climate Dynamics group at the University of Oxford's Atmospheric, Oceanic and Planetary Physics Department, talked about the early history and research of climate science, which goes back FIVE decades.
Dr. Gary Griggs, Distinguished Professor of Earth Sciences at the University of California Santa Cruz, talked about what a sea-level rise would mean for Oakland International Airport, which sits on a landfill. Even an extra foot of water would be detrimental to bayfront areas.
Dr. Don Wuebbles, Department of Atmospheric Science at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, discussed the increasing trends in California's wildfires, which are burning bigger and hotter than ever.
The oil companies' attorney Theodore Boutrous agreed with the assessments, but then put an emphasis on the "uncertainty of climate science". But at least both sides appear to agree: The climate is changing and is driven by human activity, leading to an increase in greenhouse gas emissions. Back in August 2017, a group of Harvard researchers found evidence that Exxon misled the public on climate science and promoted doubt about global warming.
It is interesting to note that Chevron did NOT bring expert scientists to
Their lawyer did mention a report from from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2013, which included mitigation plans for climate impacts by reducing emissions but Boutrous hardly mentioned them. Shocking.
What he did emphasize was the five-year old report citing population growth, not energy production, that is driving the spike of greenhouse gases. The oil companies' lawyer also blamed Congress for encouraging oil and gas development.
So, Julie Kelly at the Federalist, which of these expert scientists' reports are bogus? Go ahead. I'll wait.
- https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/03/21/unusual-court-hearing-on-climate-change-underway-in-san-francisco-court/
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myles_Allen
- https://eps.ucsc.edu/faculty/Profiles/singleton.php?&singleton=true&cruz_id=griggs
- https://www.atmos.illinois.edu/cms/One.aspx?siteId=127458&pageId=151986
- http://www.businessinsider.com/oil-companies-climate-change-tutorial-in-court-2018-3
- http://www.businessinsider.com/r-harvard-researchers-say-exxon-misled-public-on-climate-science-2017-8
- https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2018/03/03/cal-court-to-hear-climate-tutorial/
- http://www.nola.com/environment/index.ssf/2018/03/big_oil_lawyer_emphasizes_clim.html
- https://www.chron.com/news/science/article/The-Latest-Judge-Climate-tutorial-intended-to-12770460.php
- http://thefederalist.com/2018/03/23/successful-climate-pressure-tactics-paved-way-gun-control-bullying/#disqus_thread