Leo

A Court case is progressing at present where San Francisco and Oakland have taken fossil fuel companies to Court.
The Chevron barrister has used the IPCC as evidence; though, they stated that consumers are responsible for the emissions created. But, Executives and workers from fossil fuel companies also use their own product. Logically it is not an argument that holds very well.

Lindzen and Monckton are providing different types of arguments; mutually exclusive to what the Chevron barrister is saying; it displays the dogs breakfast of various arguments that contrarians are pushing.

The Chevron 2018 presentation contradicts the point you were pushing through your 2007 Dr Carter reference.

Yes, flea, another of your narrative without supporting references.Chevron does not contradict Carter
I have a reference to the climate fraud, which is a centre of interest to you
:” This is why Mann fabricated the Hockey Stick Graph and with this reason being the perpetration of a fraud. Dr Tim Ball, in 2011, famously declared Michael Mann “belongs in the state pen, not Penn. State” and has faced a six-year legal battle from Mann over this controversy.
But as the evidence above shows, “state pen” is probably where Mann should be!
As the case unfolded, the BC Supreme Court directed Mann to turn over all data relating to his graph by Feb. 20, 2017. The deadline came and went without the data being handed over by Mann. Mann’s refusal to disgorge the data has put the Penn State researcher in a precarious legal position. As Ball explains (principia-scientific.org):
“We believe that he [Mann] withheld on the basis of a US court ruling that it was all his intellectual property. This ruling was made despite the fact the US taxpayer paid for the research and the research results were used as the basis of literally earth-shattering policies on energy and environment. The problem for him is that the Canadian court holds that you cannot withhold documents that are central to your charge of defamation regardless of the US ruling.”
https://principia-scientific.org/what-michael-manns-hockey-stick-graph-gave-to-un-climate-fraud/

Leo

It is very easy to find the source of the quoted statements below:

Quote:

"Chevron’s lawyer presented the science for the defense, and most notably, began by explicitly accepting the expert consensus on human-caused global warming, saying:

From Chevron’s perspective, there is no debate about the science of climate change"

Also:

"In other words, the oil industry’s strategy is to argue that individual climate impacts are difficult to pin down, and in any case, the blame lies not with the producers, but with the consumers of their products."

Consumers are blamed by Chevron while acknowledging the damage fossil fuels create.

And from another sources:

"CHEVRON WOULD LIKE you to know that it believes in climate change. It also believes people cause it by burning carbon-based fuel—the kind Chevron extracts from the ground, refines, and sells."

"Prominent climate contrarians are seeking to insert their views into an unusual science tutorial scheduled to be held in federal court on Wednesday by offering "friend of the court" briefs that run contrary to the prevailing mainstream consensus."

Introduction to Court Case:

https://www.ucsusa.org/press/2017/oakland-and-san-francisco-lawsuits-hold-fossil-fuel-companies-accountable-their#.WrbR7GZL2CQ

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/20032018/judge-questions-climate-change-answers-fossil-fuels-lawsuit-california-cities-sea-level-rise-global-warming

https://mashable.com/2018/03/22/climate-science-in-court-oil-companies/#t9wl8O8tFaqF

Quote from Mashable:

""It's a lot harder to lie to the court under penalty of perjury," said Siegel.

Richard Wiles, Executive Director of the Center for Climate Integrity, agrees.

"The fact that Chevron’s lawyer, rather than an actual climate scientist, provided the court with its version of climate history suggests that the industry could not find a scientist willing to carry its water," Wiles said in a statement. "

A comment touching on fraud of contrarian views.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/21/the-associated-press-the-latest-chevron-lawyer-no-debate-about-climate-science.html

Another source stating Chevron agreed anthropogenic climate change was accepted by the fossil fuel company.

Where is your science, Leo?

You have no idea, do you flea?
Carter’s science has not been dealt with. It demolishes the “science” of the IPCC, which has no answer to Carter.
It does not matter to Chevron, which has moved to dismiss the suit
“This is not the first (or even the second or third) time a plaintiff has tried to plead global-warming related tort claims,” the oil companies said. “Federal common law does not provide relief here.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/legalnewsline/2018/03/21/chevron-says-climate-change-lawsuit-not-viable-as-it-prepares-to-tutor-judge-on-the-science/#7ab4c5decd47

You have done your best to mislead yourself by referencing the disreputable ICS, and succeeded.
Carter’s science stands. There Is no science to show any measurable human effect on climate.
If there is, you have failed to reference it.
Your ignorance includes a total inability to grasp the concept of science, doesn't it, flea? You just need to understand that your nonsense cannot assist you

Leo

Still no science; sophistry does not knock out science.

The Court in San Francisco asked for tutorials in relation to climate change. The Barrister for Chevron chose to promote climate science. He used the IPCC as a reference. So my point stands, the case Chevron posited was mutually exclusive to Dr Carter opinion.
Science becomes more refined as time goes on; it is now 2018, not 2007.

Whether the case continues is not known, my point is that Chevron has pushed IPCC as their source in the Court setting, and agreed greenhouse gases are increasing and Earth is warming.

You are asserting, flea, that you are stupid enough to consider that a formal statement by a lawyer, setting out the basis of the parameters of his case, for the purpose of a hearing, with no mention of Carter’s science, can somehow nullify it.
His acceptance of science which hs been nullified by Carter has no effect whatsoever, on the science and he has indicated that he will tender no evidence on the science.
Refer us to science, flea, which refutes Carter.
Nonsense remarks, dishonestly inferring that the science has changed simply emphasise your failure.