Do we need to be preparing for Arctic cruising strategies because of Global Cooling

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

I have neither read nor seen any evidence to support these allegations,

Then you have not been paying attention

At a meeting in Exxon Corporation's headquarters, a senior company scientist named James F. Black addressed an audience of powerful oilmen. Speaking without a text as he flipped through detailed slides, Black delivered a sobering message: carbon dioxide from the world's use of fossil fuels would warm the planet and could eventually endanger humanity.

"In the first place, there is general scientific agreement that the most likely manner in which mankind is influencing the global climate is through carbon dioxide release from the burning of fossil fuels," Black told Exxon's Management Committee, according to a written version he recorded later.

It was July 1977 when Exxon's leaders received this blunt assessment, well before most of the world had heard of the looming climate crisis.

Exxon's Own Research Confirmed Fossil Fuels' Role in Global Warming Decades Ago | InsideClimate News

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

. But I guess this is why AGW proponents continue to stress the factually inaccurate "99% consensus."

Here is a challenge for you - prove it is factually incorrect.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

There's "an organized and well-funded anti pro-AGW industry as well whose reason for existence is to spin AGW facts and manufacture opposition exaggerated support to the scientific finding of AGW."

Yes there's advocacy for the pro-AGW side, supporting the prevailing scientific opinion. Only on the anti- side do you see the creation of 'sources' of anti-AGW 'science'.

Give me specific instances with links to objective sources of analysis about the FOIA cases and I would not be silent nor defensive. I thought the ultimate disposition by the trial & appellate courts in favor of Michael Mann vs. the Tenn. AG reasonably balanced the competing interests.

We did the FOIA thing a few threads ago. Anyway, here's some more recent info on FOIA use. "transparancy is being weaponized"

The anti-AGW side is no slouch when it comes to harrassment and interference. (Lamar Smith, anyone?). Sauce for the goose...

Your intolerance is on full display again. The best response is always revealing any purported bias with facts, not being derogatory, manipulative, or trying to intimidate or suppress. Or do I simply need to draw a line through "Daily Caller" in your response and substitute "Huffington Post?"

I cannot believe you're wasting breath on the Daily Caller. Yes there's such a thing as bias. Daily Caller is biased, HuffPo is biased. Then there's such a thing as the quality and quantity of journalism, their editorial standards, the extent to which they skew a story to their bias. The Daily Caller is just inflammatory crap; HuffPo is doing journalism, biased or not. There's no comparison.

(I'm sure there is a left-wing equivalent to the drivel from Daily Caller; HuffPo ain't it. But no one here's yet had the bad taste to link to anything like that)

Really. Move on. The Daily Caller is indefensible, and is in no way making your points.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The key is the preponderance of evidence with is overwhelmingly on the side of AGW.




https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/burden_of_proof

Peabody Energy brought contrarians Spencer, Happer, and Lindzen to testify on their behalf, but the judge wasn’t convinced by their case.

On the AGW side were John Abraham and Andrew Dressler.

I have feeling this does not bode well for Mark Steyn, NRO and CEI.

Although it's been explained a couple of times now, I think you may still be conflating the civil standard of proof -- in this case proof by a "preponderance of the evidence" -- with the burden of proof that generally usually falls on the plaintiff, petitioner, appellant, or proponent of any court action. In this non-binding, advisory, administrative proceeding designed to help the utility commission establish rates based on costs of coal vs. renewable energy, the court placed this burden of proof on the coal cos. for legal reasons that are frankly not entirely clear, at least to me. It could be a nuance unique to the regulatory process, but I'm not sure.

The upshot of this preliminary ruling is that, unless the coal cos. can meet their court-imposed burden of meeting the requisite standard of proof, then they lose. Period. But they don't and didn't lose because the court found recognized and highly credentialed experts such as Spencer, Happer, and Linden not credible or their opinions scientifically bogus, but because the opposing IPCC findings (also supported by expert testimony) are the majority view and enjoy much wider scientific support, regardless of whether you, I, or the judge agree with those findings or not.

So based on this particular court's recommendation, the state utility commission is now authorized to impose artifically higher rates for energy generated by coal based on the mainstream's opinion about coal's higher "costs" (i.e. claimed impact on the environment), thereby making the inherently higher cost of renewables more competitive. In other words, it is another attempt to use the courts to impose in effect a carbon tax which its proponents are having a hard time achieving through the normal democratic process. And whether it is imposed by the courts or agreed to by the people, guess who pays?

This has nothing to do with the ongoing lawsuit by Michael Mann against Mark Steyn for alleged defamation, or the threatened fraud actions by the DOJ & 17 state AG's against conservative nonprofits who support contrarian CC research & advocacy.

You should really follow the advice you so enjoy lambasting others with and read the admin. court's 150-page opinion before commenting further. Or continue to be duped by the pseudo-legal propaganda from extremely biased newsletter accounts your comments obviously suggest you continue to rely on.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

[P-E] don't and didn't lose because the court found recognized and highly credentialed experts such as Spencer, Happer, and Linden not credible or their opinions scientifically bogus, but because the opposing IPCC findings (also supported by expert testimony) are the majority view and enjoy much wider scientific support, regardless of whether you, I, or the judge agree with those findings or not.

... that's pretty straightforward, isn't it? On a matter which requires an expert command of the field to understand and process, the court isn't going to be any more conclusive than a sailing forum in determining the reality and impact of AGW. The court isn't and will never be a specialist in climate science, they must therefore accept the dominant opinion of the field. I can't see how the court could rule otherwise.

Imposing a carbon tax is a legislative decision. It's a decision that should ideally be made at a higher level than the Utilities Commission. But AGW isn't something to be decided in court. Unless you're prepared for a really, really long trial.

[Celestialsailor]

Originally Posted by Exile

You don't have to wait (and hope) for the mods to close the thread, but are free to end your reading & participation anytime you like. But I hope you'll stay!

Thank you for the suggestion but I think I'll stay. Say...you'd probably maker a good mod...

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Exile:
I have neither read nor seen any evidence to support these allegations,

Originally Posted by jackdale

Then you have not been paying attention

Exxon's Own Research Confirmed Fossil Fuels' Role in Global Warming Decades Ago | InsideClimate News

Oh but I think I have been paying attention, ever more so now after again recently confirming that you don't always seem to be playing it straight with us. It's ironic but not surprising that I think you were the one who pointed out this bit of history to us, and it goes much further back than the Exxon CEO's "epiphany" in 1977.

Svante Arrhenius (1859-1927) was a Swedish scientist that was the first to claim in 1896 that fossil fuel combustion may eventually result in enhanced global warming. He proposed a relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and temperature.

Read more: History of the greenhouse effect and global warming

So the evidence you cite in support of "fraud" and "racketeering" is that the head of Exxon acknowledged the scientific theory supporting the relationship btwn. CO2 and warming in 1977, or 81 years after it was first put forward. But then Exxon has been trying to "suppress" and "mislead the public" ever since about a universally recognized theory that, unlike the bad health effects from tobacco, remains a theory to this day, and one which even you apparently doesn't believe warrants categorizing as scientific "fact."

Anything else about the legal system you care to opine about from InsideClimate News |, counselor?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Celestialsailor

Thank you for the suggestion but I think I'll stay. Say...you'd probably maker a good mod...

NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!!

Not that I don't have all the respect in the world for our beloved volunteer mods, their lack of compensation a noteworthy consideration as they try to do what is probably a pretty difficult job much of the time. Given the level of acrimony over this topic generally, I'd say they've struck a pretty fair balance here and their input has generally improved the "tone" of the discussion. But hey, it's all relative . . . .

Glad to hear you're staying Celestial! But you'd know I'd be lying if I said it's because I agree with your stands on CC. Rather, I read parts of your blog a long time ago and found inspiring your overcoming serious health issues to go messin' around with your boat again. That sorta thing trumps politics and all that boring kinda stuff.

[conachair]

Originally Posted by Exile

Entirely consistent with a long-term warming trend which enjoys near-unanimous consensus amongst climate scientists. But standing alone it reveals nothing about human v. natural causes, .

What "natural causes" are causing the extremely rapid warming trend?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Exile:
[P-E] don't and didn't lose because the court found recognized and highly credentialed experts such as Spencer, Happer, and Linden not credible or their opinions scientifically bogus, but because the opposing IPCC findings (also supported by expert testimony) are the majority view and enjoy much wider scientific support, regardless of whether you, I, or the judge agree with those findings or not.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

... that's pretty straightforward, isn't it?

Maybe not unreasonable, and lower courts typically don't like getting overturned. It was probably the safer option from a legal standpoint. But you're missing the point of the discussion -- the court's analysis, factual findings & conclusions were inapposite to how Jack and his "sources" represented them. Why not represent it accurately -- it is some sort of a "win" I suppose -- rather than spew all the propaganda?

On a matter which requires an expert command of the field to understand and process, the court isn't going to be any more conclusive than a sailing forum in determining the reality and impact of AGW. The court isn't and will never be a specialist in climate science, they must therefore accept the dominant opinion of the field. I can't see how the court could rule otherwise.

A court probably shouldn't but certainly can be more conclusive on a narrowly defined, purely regulatory issue when required to choose between equally credible but competing experts. But choosing the more popular expert opinion in a legal setting has little to do with whether that opinion is ultimately proved valid as a matter of science. It would be like a court choosing between competing expert opinions on DNA or fingerprint evidence. One approach is usually more "accepted," but that doesn't necessarily mean that the alternative won't be relied on by the court instead.

Imposing a carbon tax is a legislative decision. It's a decision that should ideally be made at a higher level than the Utilities Commission. But AGW isn't something to be decided in court. Unless you're prepared for a really, really long trial.

Easy for you to say, but this is exactly what a court effectively decided to recommend to the utility commission in this very case. Consumers don't care if it's called a "carbon tax" or a rate hike, they may very well be paying more for their energy because one judge decided that the cost of a fossil fuel should be artificially inflated to make more expensive forms of energy more price-competitive. But maybe the commission itself is an elected body, or at least appointed by elected officials. Maybe homeowners should put up their own solar panels and vote "Leave" from the bureaucrats?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

So the evidence you cite in support of "fraud" and "racketeering" is that the head of Exxon acknowledged the scientific theory supporting the relationship btwn. CO2 and warming in 1977, or 81 years after it was first put forward. But then Exxon has been trying to "suppress" and "mislead the public" ever since about a universally recognized theory that, unlike the bad health effects from tobacco, remains a theory to this day, and one which even you apparently doesn't believe warrants categorizing as scientific "fact."

Does it not strike you as odd that the same folks that tried to spur doubt about tobacco are the same folks who are trying to spur doubt about AGW. They are using the same tactics, same strategies, etc..

Here is Joe Bast of the Heartland Institute defending smoking

Joe Camel Is Innocent! | Heartlander Magazine

BTW - gravity remains a theory - actually two quite different ones.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

A court probably shouldn't but certainly can be more conclusive on a narrowly defined, purely regulatory issue when required to choose between equally credible but competing experts. But choosing the more popular expert opinion in a legal setting has little to do with whether that opinion is ultimately proved valid as a matter of science. It would be like a court choosing between competing expert opinions on DNA or fingerprint evidence. One approach is usually more "accepted," but that doesn't necessarily mean that the alternative won't be relied on by the court instead.

...except "MMGW isn't really a problem" (the defense raised by P-E) is hardly a narrow and precise issue, legally or otherwise. Absolutely different from experts testifying whether this was or was not Exile's DNA or fingerprint. And it's not about what's "popular". (nice try tho)

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Yes there's advocacy for the pro-AGW side, supporting the prevailing scientific opinion. Only on the anti- side do you see the creation of 'sources' of anti-AGW 'science'.

Read Judith Curry's blog and report back to us. Lots of scientists with different opinions on there. Not much "invented science" as far as I could tell.


We did the FOIA thing a few threads ago. Anyway, here's some more recent info on FOIA use. "transparancy is being weaponized"

I have no doubt about that. It is up to the courts to strike the needed balance. No different from the discovery process in complex civil litigation. It can be used to expedite the case and get to the truth or it can be abused to harass the other side, but most of the time it's used properly with the help of the courts. It's all too easy for you to criticize, but what would you propose -- not allowing public access in the majority of the cases to prevent abuse in some? So much for "power to the people."

The anti-AGW side is no slouch when it comes to harrassment and interference. (Lamar Smith, anyone?). Sauce for the goose...

. . . is sauce for the gander? What's your point -- that only one side in a politically charged debate is virtuous? Oh I forgot -- so long as it's your side.

I cannot believe you're wasting breath on the Daily Caller. Yes there's such a thing as bias. Daily Caller is biased, HuffPo is biased. Then there's such a thing as the quality and quantity of journalism, their editorial standards, the extent to which they skew a story to their bias. The Daily Caller is just inflammatory crap; HuffPo is doing journalism, biased or not. There's no comparison.

(I'm sure there is a left-wing equivalent to the drivel from Daily Caller; HuffPo ain't it. But no one here's yet had the bad taste to link to anything like that)

Really. Move on. The Daily Caller is indefensible, and is in no way making your points.

You missed it again. The point is not to try and "defend" the Daily Caller or any other publication, but not to vilify, marginalize, or be condescending towards any publication that has such a large following. What you are really doing, of course, is marginalizing the millions of mostly conservatives who read it, but the fact is that you cannot see this because you are more out of the political mainstream than they are, at least here in the U.S.

The Daily Caller was cited for an article explaining why Exxon/Mobil and conservative think tanks are being "prosecuted" for their opinions on CC in every sense of that word except in the formal legal one. This was then explained to you with the links you requested, and there are scores of other publications who have reported it in exactly the same way. This is happening in the U.S. and it should concern everyone, especially since it's a precedent that can easily be turned against an issue or group you care about when the political winds shift (and they always do). Have any opinion you'd like, but I'm afraid you're the one who finally needs to move on from constantly resorting to this elementary school level of political rancor.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Originally Posted by Exile:
[P-E] don't and didn't lose because the court found recognized and highly credentialed experts such as Spencer, Happer, and Linden (sic) not credible or their opinions scientifically bogus, but because the opposing IPCC findings (also supported by expert testimony) are the majority view and enjoy much wider scientific support, regardless of whether you, I, or the judge agree with those findings or not.

The decision was made on a preponderance of evidence which is exactly how these decisions are made.

Yes I have read the all 142 pages.

How you can claim that this is nothing other a defeat for Peabody and the others is denial writ large.

Some of us are still waiting for the natural causes of the current warming.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

...except "MMGW isn't really a problem" (the defense raised by P-E) is hardly a narrow and precise issue, legally or otherwise. Absolutely different from experts testifying whether this was or was not Exile's DNA or fingerprint. And it's not about what's "popular". (nice try tho)

Is "MMGW isn't really a problem" how Peabody et al. framed their defense, or how the commentariat framed it? Just asking -- maybe they did, I just can't recall from the opinion itself. However it was framed, the underlying issue was which expert opinion to use in evaluating the "costs" of using coal, the theoretical "cost" to the "atmosphere" that is.

I see we have another in-house counsel here who has the qualifications to opine on the complexities of expert evidence in a case like this. And I suppose you've read all 150 . . . errr, I mean 142 pages as well? You can use any synonym to describe the "majority" scientific opinion on AGW that suits you. There are plenty other than 99% consensus that would accurately describe it.