The Climate Change Trial: A Case Pitting Reason Against Extremism

[rangerrebew]

The Climate Change Trial: A Case Pitting Reason Against Extremism
Ken Blackwell

Posted: Mar 28, 2018 12:01 AM


The legal battle against oil companies for their purported role in contributing to a climate change crisis is starting to take shape. This past Wednesday, a federal judge in San Francisco made history, holding the first-ever U.S. court hearing exploring the impact of climate change. Lawyers representing the cities of Oakland and San Francisco as well as five of the largest multinational oil companies named in the lawsuit, participated in a climate change “tutorial,” a chance to explore both sides’ positions on several questions related to climate change. Here’s what we learned from the hearing: future litigation will pit reasoned dialog in line with mainstream climate science against the politically charged rhetoric of climate change extremism.

https://townhall.com/columnists/kenblackwell/2018/03/28/the-climate-change-trial-a-case-pitting-reason-against-extremism-n2465366

[Sanguine]

There is at least one other older article posted on this:  http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,310606.0.html

Interesting topic. 

[thackney]

http://freebeacon.com/issues/climate-change-trial-starts-rough-footing-environmentalists/

...During the tutorial, the judge pointed to several inaccuracies in the data and materials provided by the plaintiffs, sometimes to the embarrassment of climate change activists.

Alsup also castigated the plaintiff's claims of a "smoking gun" document that would prove the conspiracy claims true. The plaintiffs pointed to a report that the companies had in their possession as proof they knew about the nefarious effects of climate change in 1995.

The "smoking gun" document in question proved to be a regurgitated summary of a 1995 report by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. At the time of its release, the report was subject to significant scrutiny by many in the scientific community because it was riddled with huge uncertainties.

"There was a conspiratorial document within the defendants about how they knew good and well that global warming was right around the corner," Alsup said. "Well, it turned out it wasn’t quite that. What it was, was a slide show that somebody had gone to the IPCC and was reporting on what the IPCC had reported, and that was it. Nothing more."

The judge pointed out that since the report was widely and readily available, proving a conspiracy claim would be difficult.

"So they were on notice of what in IPCC said from that document, but it’s hard to say that they were secretly aware," he said. "By that point they knew. Everybody knew everything in the IPCC."

Since the release of the report, many of its key projections have been proved unfounded.....

[truth_seeker]

It kind of reminds a reasonable skeptic, of the FISA Court filing, which relied on a fraudulent investigation, citing news reports of same, etc.

And it reminds one of journalism, whereby an article relies on the AP, unnamed sources, etc. All as reported by yet another news organ.

In each instance, the result is an intentional deception. From such tactics arise "settled science" claims.

[Fishrrman]

Excerpt from the Introduction in Michael Crichton's "State of Fear", written in 2004:
=============
"In late 2003, at the Sustainable Earth Summit conference in Johannesburg, the Pacific island nation of Vanutu announced that it was preparing a lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency of the United States over global warming. Vanutu stood only a few feet above sea level, and the island’s eight thousand inhabitants were in dan- ger of having to evacuate their country because of rising sea levels caused by global warming. The United States, the largest economy in the world, was also the largest emitter of carbon dioxide and therefore the largest contributor to global warming.

The National Environmental Resource Fund, an American activist group, announced that it would join forces with Vanutu in the lawsuit, which was expected to be filed in the summer of 2004. It was rumored that wealthy philanthropist George Morton, who frequently backed environmental causes, would personally finance the suit, expected to cost more than $8 million. Since the suit would ultimately be heard by the sympathetic Ninth Circuit in San Francisco, the litigation was awaited with some anticipation."
=============

You can find the entire book online, if you're willing to look.