A Judge sees through lies told by Climate Scientists and their Lawyers. Lawyers lose confidence in Climate Scientists and money making scams. It was in California too!

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/03/21/boom-federal-judge-dismisses-claim-of-a-conspiracy-to-suppress-global-warming-science/

BOOM! Federal Judge Dismisses Claim Of “Big-Oil” Conspiracy To Suppress Global Warming Science

Anthony Watts / 1 hour ago March 21, 2018

"In a rare event, sanity prevails in California – Climate skeptics rule, alarmists drool.

A federal judge overseeing a lawsuit dismissed a core section plaintiffs brought in the case — oil companies conspired to cover up global warming science."

This is not the end of the Case, but the Plaintiff's Lawyers will want paying

Breitbart?

Argumentum Graunadian.

or Grauniadic?

clipe, in Climate Science, The Guardian is a revered source. Quite why they feel that Copy and Pastng from John Cook's Skeptical Science, is a good busness strategy is a mystery, but probably has something to do with The Guardian's financial crisis, brought on by:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/06/climate-change-guardian-threat-to-earth-alan-rusbridger

"The climate threat features very prominently on the home page of the Guardian on Friday even though nothing exceptional happened on this day. It will be there again next week and the week after. You will, I hope, be reading a lot about our climate over the coming weeks."

Another fine mess thar Alan Rusbridger has got The Guardian into. Whatever your politics, the best qualities of The Guardian are being ruined financially.

It does seem that people who support Climate Science, Green politics and unreliable energy, need a constant supply of other people's money, because the economics do not work, as former Guardian journalists have found out.

Golf Charlie

What lack of warming?

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly.svg#mw-jump-to-license

Golf Charlie

citeSAN FRANCISCO — Opponents in a lawsuit rarely find themselves in the same corner of a legal boxing match. In federal court here Wednesday, though, the gloves stayed on: Leading climate change experts and oil industry representatives largely agreed our planet is warming, our seas rising

“You have counsel for fossil fuel companies on the record conceding the fundamentals of climate change,” said Jessica Wentz, a lawyer with the Sabin Center for Climate Change . .

https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2018/03/21/unusual-court-hearing-on-climate-change-underway-in-san-francisco-court/

Climate sensitivity. CS. It doesn't mean much. It is a real thing but the uses to which people put it go far beyond what is valid. CS is good for comparing models with observations or with each other. It is NOT good for prediciting temperature changes over multiple doublings. You can't use 11 doublings meaningfully to represent conditions on Venus. I can't use three and a half halving to compare today with snowball Earth. So many emergent phenomena are intrinsic to climate that it won't work with even one doubling. Let's just use it to compare models and observations within the limits of GHG change we can expect to see in our lifetimes.

Mar 22, 2018 at 9:19 AM | Entropic man
Not a trustworthy or reliable source. Any Country Bumpkin from anywhere in the World can see that is useless data. Is it supposed to be predictive?

Are they threatened with a substantial cut in Taxpayer Funding by any chance?

Date 27 January 2017, 12:11
Source http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
Author NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies

As NASA has shown how easily it can be corrupted, how much of their current expertise is worth retaining?

https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2018/03/21/unusual-court-hearing-on-climate-change-underway-in-san-francisco-court/

Mar 22, 2018 at 9:29 AM | Entropic man

Only believers in Mann's Hockey Stick have to DENY the climate has changed before.

Mann denies the MWP and LIA. I never have. The climate changes, it always has, and always will. Climate Science does not know why it has never been constant, because they have to DENY it, to maintain their income.

I think you accept the MWP existed. How are you getting on with the LIA?

Mann denies the MWP and LIA.

Not really. There's a page on his personal website and he also took some of those $billions of grant money and co-authored a paper on the medieval and LIA periods. He found the period 950 - 1250 AD to be ….

characterized by warmth over a large part of the North Atlantic, Southern Greenland, the Eurasian Arctic, and parts of North America, which appears to substantially exceed that of the modern late– 20th century (1961–1990) baseline and is comparable to or exceeds that of the past one-to-two decades in some regions. This finding is consistent with that of a recent tree-ring–based study of high-latitude Eurasian temperatures. […] Certain regions, such as central Eurasia, northwestern North America, and (with less confidence) parts of the South Atlantic, exhibit anomalous coolness.

Science 2009.

Mar 22, 2018 at 11:37 AM | Phil Clarke

So why has he not corrected his Hockey Stick? Or retracted it?

Why do you promote Climate Science Peer Reviewed garbage as proving Mann's Hockey Stick?

You just seem to be confirming why Mann is scared of standing up in Court, to explain how Climate Science is "settled", by Peer Review and phoney faked up Consensus rubbish by Skeptical Science.

I am not going through the whole list of quotes, but if the topic is gullibility, here's the much-used quote from the Club of Rome Quote.

The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.“

And here is the actual text, with the part that always gets deleted, restored.

In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill.

In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention In natural processes. and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.

Which reads rather differently.

Here's another

That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have."

- Stephen Schneider

And, in context

On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but—which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.

Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?” 

Pretty Damning, except Strong was being interviewed about a planned work of fiction, and the words were in the mouth of one of the characters.

Can't be bothered to go through them all. Three is sufficient to prove dishonesty.

Can't be bothered to go through them all. Three is sufficient to prove dishonesty.

Mar 22, 2018 at 2:16 PM | Phil Clarke

At least the Judge went through all the evidence before throwing out the garbage supplied by Climate Science:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/03/21/boom-federal-judge-dismisses-claim-of-a-conspiracy-to-suppress-global-warming-science/

Phil Clarke, can you be bothered with anything that has not been Peer Approved by Climate Science?

Golf Charlie

You know that "ruling".

This is what Judge Alsup said, and it's context.

Despite opening with a warning from Alsup “not to get political,” the tutorial ended on a political note. Boutrous referenced a paragraph in the plaintiffs’ complaint that accuses the defendants of colluding to suppress public information about climate change. “From what I’ve seen—and feel free to send me other documentation—but all I’ve seen so far is that someone went to the IPCC conference and took notes,” Alsup said. “That’s not a conspiracy.”

Radical Rodent

Still waiting.

Why is the 1 bar level of Venus's atmosphere 51C warmer than Earth's 1 bar level despite absorbing 38% less energy than Earth?

Radical Rodent.

"Geronimo: the “poor wording” is quite easy to see:"

Did I say that? I think you might have seen Phil Clarke say it, but not me.

Phil Clarke: "He found the period 950 - 1250 AD to be …." The paper you referred to was published in 2009, I think Mikey came to the MWP a bit late in the day, by 2009, except for a blip in 2003 when some chump produced a paper without the MWP, it was common knowledge among climate scientists.

How did it get to court in the first place? We have had 5 IPCC reports, the papers are full everyday with warnings of dire climate catastrophes. Barely a radio or TV news programme goes by without a mention of the dire effects climate change. The whole world is building useless heavily subsidised wind and sun power generation plant. And the environmentalists want to take what, even if they are guilty, they are probably the world's worst - ever - conspirators. They've silenced no one.

Geronimo

The case is not about climate change.

Basically it is a product liability tort

The plaintiffs' case is that the fossil fuel defendants knowingly sold and marketed a harmful product while concealing the danger. The defendants are therefore liable for the costs and damage that the plaintiffs have incurred as a result.

The defendants are therefore liable for the costs and damage that the plaintiffs have incurred as a result.

Mar 22, 2018 at 8:37 PM | Entropic man

You can predict the outcome of a Law Case, based on Climate Scientist's advice that can't predict Climate?

"Basically it is a product liability tort". Does that mean that Taxpayers can sue Climate Scientists to get their money back?
It does not deliver what it says on the tin.