search
top

The Climate Change Smoking Gun That Wasn’t.

You may have heard of a trial going on in California where the cities of Oakland and San Francisco are suing oil companies for their alleged part in “climate change.”

The lawsuit is not about actual climate change because there is no way that either city or citizens could live without oil and petroleum products. Instead, the cities want oil companies to pay for “costs” associated with their products that are legally bought by a third party (the consumer at the gas pump.)

One of the key elements in the lawsuit is that the cities accuse the oil companies of hiding data and the supposed effect of the use of their products from consumers and investors. It is a key element for the cities to prove that the companies defrauded consumers and investors by the companies telling people of the so called risks to the climate when the products are used.

The cities represented to the judge that there was a “smoking gun,” – a memo that the companies had tried to suppress and hide from the people.

Such a charge would fit into the narrative of “profits over people” which is what the cities want to portray.

However, there is a problem and the judge in the case saw it:

In a hearing last week, U.S. District Judge William Alsup expressed some peevishness about how the plaintiffs characterized the GCC [Global Climate Coalition, a group formed by the American Petroleum Institute] memo. The judge said he read the original paragraph to suggest “there was a conspiratorial document within the defendants about how they knew good and well that global warming was right around the corner.”

“And I said, `Okay,’ that’s going to be a big thing. I want to see it,” the judge continued. “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.”

Since by that point “everybody knew” what the IPCC had reported, the judge said, “it’s hard to say they were secretly aware.”

In other words, the “smoking gun,” was not even a spitball in an elementary cafeteria.

The plaintiffs had lied about the memo, lied about its contents, and lied about whether the companies were hiding anything. After all, how can one hide what is in plain sight?

The judge is not a happy camper and he should not be. The companies have wasted time and money on producing documents as well as lawyer hours to defend a suit in which the cities are lying to a judge and to the people.

Make you wonder what else those in the “climate change” game are lying about, doesn’t it?



Comments are closed.

top