The proposition sceptics make is that the «hockey stick» is just too convenient and came along when those trying to make
a case against fossil fuels were not making much headway.
The case against the fossil fuel industry largely relies on proving that these companies deceived the American public about the threats posed by consuming their products.
Not exact matches
The judge in the cities» lawsuit
against fossil fuel companies has ordered the contrarians to reveal who paid for their research and any connections to the
case.
What I find ironic is that it is his can - do optimism that is in this
case working
against our ability to do something about our dependence on
fossil fuels and the climate change that this dependence is resulting in, that is, switching to alternate energy, preserving modern civilization and the world economy beyond Peak Oil and Peak Coal, preventing climate change from becoming such a huge problem that it destroys that the world economy — and more than likely leads to a series of highly destructive wars over limited resources.
Judge William Alsup had requested this tutorial to bring him up to speed on the fundamental science before proceedings begin in earnest in a
case brought by the cities of San Francisco and Oakland, on behalf of the people of California,
against a group of major
fossil fuel companies, addressing the costs of climate change caused, they argue, by products those companies have sold.
The
fossil fuel industry is a proven funder of anti-science propaganda and in Shell's
case of violence
against civilian populations.
The economic
case against the CPP is further rebutted by the rapid evolution of the power sector away from
fossil fuels and the sizable drop in CO2 emissions independent of CPP requirements.
The
case against CO2 is full of liabilities; if there is any bad consequence due in future to future CO2 it will take at least a century to produce an effect large enough to matter; there is no
case that reducing human
fossil fuel use will produce a climate benefit sooner than it produces a
fuel benefit.
If this was a Court of Law, the
case against CO2 and
fossil fuel burning has been proven beyond reasonable doubt and, if this were a simple cost - benefit analysis, the
case is also very clear — the risks of not tackling the problem vastly outweigh those of taking action (or mass extinction of species will eventually result).
The primary
case against expansion of current
fossil fuel use involves the risk from anthropogenic climate change.
«We have seen in recent weeks how the
fossil fuel sector has misled consumers and investors about emissions — the Volkswagen scandal being a
case in point — and deliberately acted
against climate science for decades, judging from the recent Exxon expose.
Closer to home, a lawsuit filed by 21 youth plaintiffs (including Kelsey Juliana) and world - renowned climate scientist James Hansen on behalf of future generations
against the U.S. government cleared an important hurdle in November 2016 when federal judge Ann Aiken rejected the government and
fossil fuel industries» motion to dismiss the
case.
He'll talk about building on our work to #StopAdani, the push for
fossil fuel divestment and the groundbreaking NYC legal
case against five of the world's biggest oil companies, and ensure climate change is the number one issue on any election agenda.
That incentive alignment may not be the
case for a government - funded climate researcher whose career benefits from promulgating the shared political program of heavy intervention
against fossil fuels and would be very much hurt by not going along with that.