The Climate Docket

WHAT WE COVER:

  • Liability Litigation
    • Baltimore Lawsuit
    • California Climate Lawsuits
    • Colorado Lawsuit
    • Mass. v. Exxon
    • New York City Lawsuit
    • Rhode Island Lawsuit
    • Other Suits
  • Access to Courts
    • Liability Waivers
    • State Legislation
  • Home
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

Powered by Genesis

You are here: Home / Liability Litigation / In Climate Tutorial, Oil Industry Doubles Down on Science Uncertainty
In Climate Tutorial, Oil Industry Doubles Down on Science Uncertainty

In Climate Tutorial, Oil Industry Doubles Down on Science Uncertainty

March 22, 2018 Filed Under: California Climate Lawsuits, Liability Litigation

print
By Amy Westervelt

In a climate science tutorial in San Francisco on Wednesday, U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup pushed both defendants and plaintiffs in the San Francisco and Oakland climate liability cases to answer dozens of questions about the state of climate science. But the five-hour hearing all boiled down to one fundamental question: At what point was it clear man-made CO2 emissions were putting the climate on a path toward destruction?

It was the concept of scientific certainty, more so than the science itself, that Alsup seemed to be probing. He asked questions ranging from why various ice ages happened to which are the best renewable energy sources to whether we should have chosen to rely more on nuclear energy back in the 1950s.

Predictably, the defendants argued that the science on the causes and impacts of climate change has been too uncertain to lay the blame at their feet. The plaintiffs relied on three scientific experts who described the data from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and even more recent science and how climate models from as far back as the 1950s mapped out impacts the world is seeing today.

Alsup had ordered the tutorial to inform him of the scientific issues at hand in the case. The cities of San Francisco and Oakland are suing five major oil companies for public nuisance, saying the companies have known for decades their products contributed to global warming and not only did nothing to mitigate the harm, but also impeded action on climate change.

The judge did chastise four of the defendants for refusing to present arguments at the tutorial. Only Chevron chose to speak, relying on attorney Ted Boutrous to explain its views on the science, while attorneys from ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, BP and Shell sat in the courtroom but did not make a presentation. Alsup gave those four companies two weeks to to provide a statement in writing either agreeing with or refuting each point made in Boutrous’ presentation. “You can’t get away with sitting there in silence and then saying later, ‘Oh, he [Boutrous] doesn’t speak for us,'” Alsup said.

The plaintiffs called on Myles Allen, head of the Climate Dynamics group at the University of Oxford, whom Alsup would call “a genius” by the end of the hearing; Gary Griggs, distinguished professor of Earth and planetary sciences at the University of California at Santa Cruz; and Dr. Don Wuebbles, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Illinois and lead author of the IPCC’s fourth scientific assessment report and a member of the team who compiled the 2014 U.S. National Climate Assessment.

After announcing the acceptance of all amicus briefs (including a controversial brief backed by the conservative Heartland Institute), and noting that the U.S. government has been given until April 20 to provide one, Alsup turned the floor over to the plaintiffs. Allen started by walking through the history of climate science, including the work of Nobel Prize-winning Swedish physicist and chemist Svante August Arrhenius, who first theorized that CO2 emissions would trigger atmospheric warming. He also described Charles Keeling’s observations in Hawaii, now known as the Keeling Curve, which showed that the planet’s rising CO2 levels couldn’t just be attributed to human respiration.

Stopped frequently by Alsup to explain a chart or a bit of jargon, Allen made the case that science has successfully identified the sources and impacts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere for a very long time and that scientific consensus emerged as early as the 1950s. On this point, even Chevron’s Boutrous agreed, despite spending the majority of his two hours making the case that the science around anthropogenic climate change and its impacts has been uncertain up until the early 2000s. He agreed with Alsup that despite some disagreements on Arrhenius’s work in the 1930s and 1940s, by the early 1950s, there was consensus around the warming effect of CO2. Boutrous said, “That’s the theory that still holds today,” a statement that seemed to contradict his earlier statements that there had been no consensus around warming until 2000.

Griggs presented his findings on sea level rise, the science most relevant to the case because most of the damages claimed by the communities stem from seal level rise. Griggs discussed his work on sea level rise, how the rate is increasing and related attribution science.

Boutrous tried to counter his testimony by showing sea level rise projection charts from the fifth IPCC assessment, calculated five or more years ago. By leaving out the past five years, when global warming has produced record-breaking global temperature records and accelerated sea level rise, he attempted to leave the impression of continued uncertainty in the science.

Wuebbles, however, mentioned the science around sea level rise in particular has progressed since the last IPCC report, but did not specifically point out the misleading nature of the defendants’ choice of data and dates.

Asked why none of the experts explicitly discussed attribution science—including the Carbon Majors report that attributes more than 70 percent of global emissions to 100 companies, for example, or Allen’s work connecting extreme weather events to climate change—San Francisco city attorney Dennis Herrera said the time for that would come. “This was just a tutorial on the state of science and the history—how long it’s been known and what people knew about it for how long. In terms of attribution, that will be proven throughout the case,” Herrera said.

Boutrous, meanwhile, continually hit  three key points: the history of uncertainty in climate science, the global nature of emissions and climate change and the role that individuals and economies play in generating emissions.

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.”

The defendants indicated they plan to file a motion to dismiss the case, while the plaintiffs said they will not appeal Alsup’s ruling that the case should stay in federal court, despite them having filed it initially in California state court.

After the tutorial, Boutrous told reporters that he thought the presentation had gone well, and restated his company’s commitment to using the IPCC assessments as a guide to dealing with climate change.

Three other California climate liability suits, filed by the counties of San Marin and San Mateo and the city of Imperial Beach, meanwhile, have been sent back to state court by a different U.S. District Court judge, where the communities believe they have a stronger chance of success under state law.

 

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • More
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)

Filed Under: California Climate Lawsuits, Liability Litigation

Don't Miss a story
Subscribe 
We promise not to spam you. Unsubscribe at any time.
Invalid email address
Thanks for subscribing! Please check your email for further instructions.

Trackbacks

  1. The Climate Is Changing For Climate Skeptics – Science and Tech says:
    March 24, 2018 at 1:22 am

    […] was one of the key takeaways from a five-hour climate tutorial held Wednesday in U.S. District Court in San Francisco. Judge William Alsup, who has a history of […]

  2. The Climate Is Changing For Climate Skeptics – Technology NEWS says:
    March 24, 2018 at 1:25 am

    […] was one of the key takeaways from a five-hour climate tutorial held Wednesday in U.S. District Court in San Francisco. Judge William Alsup, who has a history of […]

  3. The Climate Is Changing For Climate Skeptics - TLO says:
    March 24, 2018 at 1:45 am

    […] was one of the key takeaways from a five-hour climate tutorial held Wednesday in U.S. District Court in San Francisco. Judge William Alsup, who has a history of […]

  4. newsCO.com.au | The Climate Is Changing For Climate Skeptics | Tweet @newsCOflash – newsCO.com.au says:
    March 24, 2018 at 1:53 am

    […] was one of the key takeaways from a five-hour climate tutorial held Wednesday in U.S. District Court in San Francisco. Judge William Alsup, who has a history of […]

  5. The Climate Is Changing For Climate Skeptics - Womens World says:
    March 24, 2018 at 4:08 am

    […] was one of the key takeaways from a five-hour climate tutorial held Wednesday in U.S. District Court in San Francisco. Judge William Alsup, who has a history of […]

  6. The Climate Is Changing For Climate Skeptics - Google Trends Online says:
    March 24, 2018 at 6:28 am

    […] was one of the key takeaways from a five-hour climate tutorial held Wednesday in U.S. District Court in San Francisco. Judge William Alsup, who has a history of […]

  7. The Climate Is Changing For Climate Skeptics – My Blog says:
    March 24, 2018 at 10:40 am

    […] was one of the key takeaways from a five-hour climate tutorial held Wednesday in U.S. District Court in San Francisco. Judge William Alsup, who has a history of […]

  8. The Climate Is Changing For Climate Skeptics #auspol #qldpol #StopAdani | jpratt27 says:
    March 24, 2018 at 4:38 pm

    […] was one of the key takeaways from a five-hour climate tutorial held Wednesday in U.S. District Court in San Francisco. Judge William Alsup, who has a history of […]

  9. The Climate Is Changing For Climate Skeptics – MNNOFA NEWS says:
    March 25, 2018 at 4:12 am

    […] was one of the key takeaways from a five-hour climate tutorial held Wednesday in U.S. District Court in San Francisco. Judge William Alsup, who has a history of […]

  10. Warmism Gets a Courtroom Thrashing | No B-S here (I hope) says:
    March 29, 2018 at 12:12 am

    […] the amount of power America used in the last 30 years?” Alsup also created a flurry by commenting from the bench that the “conspiracy” of oil companies (to disguise the climate harm of their products) looked […]

  11. Tony Thomas Warmism Gets a Courtroom Thrashing | RUTHFULLY YOURS says:
    March 29, 2018 at 7:08 pm

    […] the amount of power America used in the last 30 years?” Alsup also created a flurry by commenting from the bench that the “conspiracy” of oil companies (to disguise the climate harm of their products) looked […]

  12. 2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #13 | Climate Change says:
    March 31, 2018 at 1:11 pm

    […] In Climate Tutorial, Oil Industry Doubles Down on Science Uncertainty by Amy Westervelt, Climate Liability News, Mar 22, 2018 […]

  13. Four more oil giants acknowledge climate consensus to federal judge says:
    April 6, 2018 at 8:00 am

    […] four oil companies that did not speak at a U.S. District Court judge’s climate tutorial two weeks ago filed the responses the judge had ordered during that hearing. All four filed similar […]

  14. Sea level rise poses huge threat to Calif., raising urgency of liability cases says:
    April 11, 2018 at 8:27 am

    […] fossil fuel companies try to fend off climate liability lawsuits from coastal California communities, a recent study revealed some alarming flood projections for […]

  15. Sea Level Rise Poses a Huge Threat #auspol #qldpol #ClimateChange #StopAdani | jpratt27 says:
    April 11, 2018 at 5:09 pm

    […] fossil fuel companies try to fend off climate liability lawsuits from coastal California communities, a recent study revealed some alarming flood projections for […]

  16. Proving extreme weather link to climate will drive liability suits, paper says says:
    April 26, 2018 at 10:37 am

    […] change tutorial ordered by the judge in the San Francisco and Oakland climate liability suits touched on attribution science, but it was not extensively […]

  17. California climate cases head to pivotal hearing: Here's what could happen says:
    May 23, 2018 at 12:42 pm

    […] suggested the cities amend their complaints to bring them under federal common nuisance law. In a hearing in March, he also suggested plaintiffs update aspects of the complaint that pointed to conspiracy amongst […]

  18. Despite two dismissals, climate liability lawsuits only just getting started says:
    August 2, 2018 at 11:50 am

    […] should be heard in federal court, the cities did not appeal that ruling. After Alsup held a climate science “tutorial” in March and heard the fossil fuel companies’ motion to dismiss in May, he dismissed the case on […]

  19. Charleston, Closed in By Rising Seas, Files Climate Lawsuit Vs. Big Oil - The Climate Docket says:
    September 10, 2020 at 3:07 pm

    […] to justify those allegations in court, they could not,” Comey said, referring to a 5-hour “climate tutorial” on the current state of climate science held by U.S. District Judge William Alsup, who was […]

Don't Miss a story
Subscribe 
We promise not to spam you. Unsubscribe at any time.
Invalid email address
Thanks for subscribing! Please check your email for further instructions.

Latest News

Justice Dept. to Argue on Side of Oil Companies in Supreme Court Hearing

By Karen Savage The acting solicitor general will be allowed time to argue in support of ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, BP and nearly two dozen other companies next week during oral arguments before … [Read More...]

Recent Posts

  • Will Amy Coney Barrett, Whose Father Was a Shell Attorney for Decades, Recuse from Climate Suit?
  • Justice Dept. to Argue on Side of Oil Companies in Supreme Court Hearing
  • Oil Companies Ask Supreme Court to Decide Jurisdiction of More Climate Cases
  • Climate Suits Grew in 2020, Could Clear Huge Hurdle in 2021

Most Popular

  • Will Amy Coney Barrett, Whose Father Was a Shell Attorney for Decades, Recuse from Climate Suit?
  • French Government Sued for Inadequate Climate Action
  • Vulnerable Nations Call for Ecocide to Be Recognized As an International Crime
  • What Oil Companies Knew About Climate Change and When: A Timeline
  • Baltimore Becomes Latest City to Sue Fossil Fuel Companies for Climate Damages

Categories

  • Access to Courts
  • Baltimore Lawsuit
  • California Climate Lawsuits
  • Charleston, S.C. Lawsuit
  • Colorado Lawsuit
  • Connecticut Lawsuit
  • Delaware Lawsuit
  • Exxon Climate Investigation
  • Featured
  • Hoboken Lawsuit
  • International
  • Latest News
  • Liability Litigation
  • Liability Waivers
  • Mass. v. Exxon
  • Minnesota Lawsuit
  • New York City Lawsuit
  • Other Suits
  • Politics
  • Rhode Island Lawsuit
  • State Legislation
  • Uncategorized
  • Washington DC Lawsuit

Follow us

  • View climatedocket’s profile on Facebook
  • View climatedocket’s profile on Twitter

RSS

RSS Feed RSS - Posts

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.