A Wonderful Opportunity To Put This Scam Down

Two counties by the San Francisco Bay and San Diego County are suing “Big Oil” over rising sea levels.

Marin, San Mateo counties sue Big Oil over climate change – SFGate

Apparently no one told these left-wing morons that sea level isn’t rising in the San Francisco Bay.

Sea Level Trends – State Selection

And as far as San Diego County goes, sea level there has hardly changed in 145 years.

1871    Present

Please put me on the witness stand. I will have the plaintiffs crying for mercy in about five minutes. King Canute must be rolling in his grave at the stupidity on display by Democrats.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

43 Responses to A Wonderful Opportunity To Put This Scam Down

  1. spangled drongo says:

    Thanks, Tony. Sea levels are falling in my geodetically stable NOTW on the east coast of Australia and very little happening world wide:


    When the experts do a world wide audit on the vertical movement of major tide gauges then they might have a genuine handle on it.

    In the meantime all the people I have known throughout my lifetime who have been involved with the waterfront commercially and who would kill for a little SLR to improve their business by servicing bigger ships, all say the same:

    Still waiting for SLR!!!

  2. CheshireRed says:

    Tony you are dead right. One of alarmists most used tactics has been their constant no-platforming and refusal to debate with sceptics. That includes a noticeable reluctance to challenge allegations against AGW science in court. Yet ultimately a court room showdown is exactly that: a debate, and (one presumes) a balanced and fairly regulated one at that.

    If facing a lawsuit represents a crisis, then the old maxim of never let a good crisis go to waste applies, especially so when the ‘case’ against ‘accelerating sea level rise rates caused by human emissions of CO2’ is so pitiful.

  3. gator69 says:

    Hopefully the courts are not still in the dark ages of climate science…

  4. Sean says:

    I love the tobacco industry comparison. Ever notice that the tobacco industry is doing just fine but that states get to collect more than half the revenue from cigarettes sales for themselves? But the tobacco industry in the US is less than $1 billion while the energy industry is over $1 trillion dollars. If states get a bigger cut from a product that is a thousand time bigger, a lot of state workers won’t have to worry about where their retirement checks come from.

  5. Kris J says:

    Here is the “factual background” in the complaint…


    It leads off with the following graphic, “Global Land and Ocean Temperature Anomalies, January – December”

    • Kris J says:

      You sue someone in civil court, you have to prove a causal connection.

      Problem is, the defendants PRODUCE gasoline and coal, they don’t burn it. These cities have sued the wrong defendants.

    • Kris J says:

      Here is their basic argument…

      62. Historical greenhouse gas emissions alone through 2000 will cause a global mean sea level rise of at least 7.4 feet. Additional greenhouse gas emissions from 2001–2015 have caused approximately 10 additional feet of committed sea level rise. Even immediate and permanent cessation of all additional anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions would not prevent
      the eventual inundation of land at elevations between current average mean sea level and 17.4 feet of elevation in the absence of adaptive measures.

      • Steven Fraser says:

        No actual losses… hmm. Not much of a case. I will be interested to see what expert testimony they get to support this. The cross-examination will be brutal.

        If played right, this could tun into a bit of Red/Blue team head-to-head. Fun!

        • bleakhouses says:

          Speculative damages are no damages, case fails at demurrer level so they may never have the red/blue debate in the first place.

          None the less the case itself is not about the case itself but rather its about “what is Govt doing for you.”

        • Kris J says:

          Steven, I listed the actual damages below. They’re not messing around

        • R2Dtoo says:

          Don’t bet on that when CA courts are involved. You know the history. My guess is their tactic will be to present the computer made projections as evidence of future harm. So all they have to do is convince the court that the models are “accepted by a vast majority of scientists” to win. This is quite the game – peanuts from Canada.

    • Gator69 says:

      Anomalies have no business in climate or weather, as they assume a “normal” value where there is none.

    • Steven Fraser says:

      I really love it when this chart is used, for these reasons:

      1) an anomaly chart with no baseline is, well, baseless.
      2) this chart conflates different data products, all with their own problems in a manner that obscures error bars. For example, what studies show the temperature of the worldwide oceans in 1880, or even 1980, in a robust manner?
      3) what measurements caused the chart to decline from 1880 to 1910, and then to increase into the 1940s?
      4) THEN, there is the whole topic of adjustments over time.

      • Kris J says:


        • AndyG55 says:

          A video you should watch.


          Puts the small amount of beneficial warming, (far less than NOAA/GISS have fabricated) into perspective.

          If people really WANT to go back to the freezing desperate times of the Little Ice Age, they should move to Siberia or Northern Canada.

          But I BET these “complainers” all choose to live somewhere WARM, and choose to use fossil fuel heating (and cooling) as they see fit.

          • Kris J says:

            AndyG55…. okay that’s an excellent video

            Let me try to poke holes in it:
            1. We bore a very very deep hole. The cutting tool generates heat, there’s water melting down the side, atmospheric air is entering the hole, many many sections are removed one at a time

            2. Every time the drill is removed and reinserted, air and water and pulverized ice is moved around and mixed up and down the bore hole

            3. The hole sits open while we insert thermometer, while temperature gradient moves BTUs up and down the hole

            4. The cores sit around in a lab at atmospheric pressure, allowing gases to enter and leave

            5. After all that, we can make assertions down to fractions of a degree C?

            I suppose we have accounted for all that?

    • Andy DC says:

      That chart represents nothing but corrupted “adjusted” data produced by alarmists with no basis in fact. It makes me sick every time I see it. Actual thermometer data from stations uncorrupted by Urban Heat Island effect would look totally different.

  6. Kris J says:

    Here is the 2nd graphic used in the complaint to try to establish a causal connection, “Total Annual Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Source, 1860-2015”

    How would y’all attack this? Just curious…

    • Kris J says:

      Here are the 3rd and 4th graphics in the lawsuit. These are the only ones used in the whole complaint.

      “Cumulative Annual Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide Emissions, 1751-2014”

      • Kris J says:

        And finally… “Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration in Parts Per Million, 1960-2015”

        Damages: They’re suing for $100’s millions, for sewer pipe, schools, 600 homes, all the city streets basically

        • AndyG55 says:

          These are MEANINGLESS graph

          The Earth is a CARBON BASED system.. It ABSOLUTEY REQUIRES CO2 for the planet to function

          Atmospheric CO2 has been at the “just sustainable” level for a long time.

          This slight rise, whether it be from humans or natural sources has probably SAVED the planet , and much of the wildlife on it, from extinction.

          The planet needs MORE CO2, not less.

          And I would really love to see a scientific paper using empirical evidence, that proves that CO2 causes warming of our gravity/thermal gradient controlled atmosphere.

        • sunsettommy says:

          Kris, NONE of the charts actually show a casual relationship between CO2 emissions and Temperature change.

          Not only that Nature emits around 97% of the total yearly amount.

          But it gets worse when actual science research gets into the fray:

          Evidence Review Suggests Humans May Not Be The Primary Drivers Of CO2 Concentration Changes

          “For the last 3 years, human CO2 emissions rates have not risen. In fact, according to the IEA, we burned slightly more fossil fuels in 2014 than we did in both 2015 and 2016.

          Despite the lack of growth – even slight decline – in human emissions rates during 2014 – 2016, the atmospheric CO2 parts per million (ppm) concentration grew rapidly – by more than 8 ppm (397 ppm to 405 ppm).

          This lack of compatibility between year-to-year human emissions rate changes and year-to-year atmospheric CO2 ppm changes has existed for quite some time. Dr. Jamal Munshi describes it as a “necessary condition” for there to be a close correlation between annual fluctuations in human emissions and atmospheric CO2 concentrations. And yet when he statistically analyzed the Mauna Loa record (1959-present) of CO2 concentration changes, he concluded that they did not correlate with the variance in annual anthropogenic emissions.”

          The lawsuit is absurd.

          • Kris J says:

            Sunsettommy…. you make many good points, above, especially the 97%, and I did check out the link

            Question: if we proceed with the (probably reasonable) assumption that all government climate data is subject to tweaking and therefore suspect, how much faith can we put in CO2 measurements that claim to be that precise? i.e. measuring atmospheric CO2 is a tricky thing, varying hour-to-hour with wind, temperature, humidity, altitude, etc

            I obviously need to read up on this

          • rw says:


            Will Eschenbach had a good article on this a while back on WUWT. Freeman Dyson talked about it in a NYRB article some years ago. It looks to be very carefully done, and the work at Mauna Loa was corroborated by analyses done in Antarctica and over Scandinavia.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Nobody is arguing about that chart, Kris J, just that it probably produces cooling more than warming.
      When both sides agree that we have enjoyed 1c of warming since 1750 and this only represents one third the rate of natural climate variability, why are we not a lot hotter than this miserable 1c?

      Particularly when this is where the thermometers are mostly kept:


  7. Kris J says:

    Here’s the losses….

    166. Plaintiffs have already incurred, and will foreseeably continue to incur, injuries and damages because of sea level rise caused by Defendants’ conduct.

    a. Coastal erosive forces compromising 683 residential, commercial and open
    space parcels within the City. Economic vulnerability associated with
    erosion’s impact on real property is valued at over $106 million. Coastal
    flooding will impact 1,538 parcels, and cause over $38 million in damages,
    primarily to residential and commercial buildings. Regular tidal inundation will damage 447 parcels including two elementary schools, and cost over
    $34 million.

    b. Flooding of as much as 29.6 miles – approximately 40% – of the City’s
    roads, as well as erosive damage to 5.4 miles and regular tidal inundation
    of 4.3 miles of roads.

    c. Flooding of critical public transportation infrastructure, including 9 bus
    stops, 3.9 miles of bus route, and 3.8 miles of bicycle pathway. This
    infrastructure will also be compromised by erosion and regular tidal

    d. Damages to over 81,000 feet of wastewater transmission pipe, 9 pump
    stations, and 311 manholes within the City. Over 24,000 feet of stormwater
    pipes and 42 outlets will be impacted as well.

    e. Bayside and West View Elementary Schools will be impacted by regular
    tidal inundation and coastal flooding, necessitating relocation of those
    school sites. Six buildings at Bayside Elementary are already exposed
    during storm events and will become routinely exposed by tidal flooding
    with 1.6 feet of sea level rise.

    f. Coastal flooding and tidal inundation will compromise known hazardous
    materials sites within the City, including five businesses and two
    underground storage tank sites.

    • AndyG55 says:

      a. Coastal erosion has happened for MILLENIA. There is absolutely ZERO CO2 signal in the very minor rate of sea level rise. Sea levels have been much higher in the past.

      b. Floods and inundation are a NATURAL part of nature.. They happen. There is ZERO proof that CO2 causes any change in flooding.. The land is actually subsiding. They will have great difficult proving that CO2 causes any sort of sea level rise.. because it doesn’t.

      The rest of c,d,e,f are based on SUPPOSITION and MODELS..

      They use the term “will” which is predicated on the use of crystal balls. !!

      How long will it take to get 1.6ft of natural sea level rise??

      The current rate is what? 4mm/year, a lot of that from subsidence…

      You do the maths. .. probably 100 years plus.

      The whole thing is a load of baseless junk.

      • AndyG55 says:


        Oops. I was thinking Florica region.

        California .. sea level rise is less than 1mm/year, iirc.
        1.6ft = approx. 500mm..

        so .. they have around 500 years to respond to rising sea level.

        Have they got the will, the intelligence,..

        … or the technology, one has to ask ;-)

  8. Kris J says:

    I think the Vulnerability Assessment cost the city around $300k

    172. As a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of the Defendants’
    alleged herein, Plaintiff has incurred significant expenses related to planning for and predicting future sea level rise injuries to its real property, improvements thereon, civil infrastructure, and citizens, in order to preemptively mitigate and/or prevent such injuries. This includes performing a Sea Level Vulnerability Assessment in 2016 at significant expense to the City that describes the extent of mitigation and adaptation measures the City must undertake in order to prevent
    significantly more expensive sea-level rise related injuries.
    173. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ acts and omissions alleged herein,
    Plaintiffs have incurred sea level rise-related injuries and damages. These include infrastructural repair and reinforcement of roads and beach access.

    • Gator69 says:

      This would be a problem if interglacial sea level rise was not already an established fact. You cannot successfully sue anyone because you are annoyed that the Sun rises too early or too late, even if you incur related costs of studies and mitigation.

  9. RAH says:

    Where is Gail when one needs her. I’m sure she would have added some informative input on this subject.

Leave a Reply to Steven Fraser Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *