Two CA cities sued five oil companies, saying they misled the public for years on warming. SF fed judge William Alsup, a singular personality, invited both sides to a “tutorial” this week to explain their views on climate change science /2
-
Show this thread
-
So everyone shows up in court on Wednesday. Lawyer for Chevron, stands up to give its spiel, saying it agrees with IPCC report that humans very likely causing climate change. Alsup asks if he speaking for all companies, he says nope, just Chevron /3
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likesShow this thread -
The other oil cos have their squadrons of lawyers all sitting there, saying nothing and acting as if they’d rather crawl under a bench. /4
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likesShow this thread -
Now, those other 4 cos had all filed motions to dismiss claiming court had no jurisdiction. So maybe they think that by participating in tutorial they’d be waiving the jurisdiction argument? Can’t be sure because again they’re saying nothing.. /5
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likesShow this thread -
But just in case, Alsup solves it immediately, tells the other four companies: don’t worry, you can totally participate in this hearing without waiving your arguments on jurisdiction. Their response? Crickets /6
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likesShow this thread -
So as Chevron lawyer doing his spiel, Alsup again notes that the other 4 cos not saying anything. And, as Alsup is known to do, he gets a little irritated. /7
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likesShow this thread -
Alsup eventually tells the other 4 cos, either file something in the next 2 weeks on whatever you disagree with Chevron’s position, or I’ll assume you agree with it /8
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likesShow this thread -
We’ll see what they file. But all of these other four companies have various statements on their web sites acknowledging climate change, some human impact, etc. So what’s the difference between that and what Chevron said the other day? Maybe one of you can tell me? /9
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likesShow this thread -
By embracing the IPCC reports in court as Chevron did, would it have put those other four oil cos at odds with some other position they’ve taken in some other forum? Is this evidence a real divergence between these companies? /10
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likesShow this thread -
Or is this just classic defense lawyer caution about being afraid to take a position when they may not have to? Or is it nothing at all? I don’t know! But it was weird, and it clearly made those other companies look pretty bad before the judge. END
2 replies 0 retweets 9 likesShow this thread
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.