The city of Chicago has filed a lawsuit against five major oil and gas companies, including BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Shell, as well as the American Petroleum Institute, alleging that these companies have engaged in climate deception by misleading consumers about the dangers of climate change associated with their products.
The lawsuit claims that these companies have known about the harmful effects of their products on the climate for decades and have actively concealed this information from the public. [emphasis, links added]
“The climate change impacts that Chicago has faced and will continue to face — including more frequent and intense storms, flooding, droughts, extreme heat events and shoreline erosion — are felt throughout every part of the city and disproportionately in low-income communities,” the city said in its lawsuit.
Source: Chicago Sun-Times
Supporters of the lawsuit argue that the oil and gas industry has a moral and legal responsibility to address the harm caused by their products and that the lawsuit is an important step in holding these companies accountable for their actions.
They link climate change to the burning of fossil fuels and argue that the industry has to inform consumers about the risks associated with their products.
Critics of the lawsuit argue that it is misguided and that the responsibility for addressing climate change should not be placed solely on the shoulders of the oil and gas industry.
They point out that these companies have taken steps to reduce their emissions and invest in renewable energy, and that the lawsuit could have unintended consequences, such as increasing the cost of energy for consumers.
The lawsuit claims Chicago faces “more frequent and intense storms, flooding, droughts, extreme heat events, and shoreline erosion” due to the actions of these companies.
However, available data contradicts this narrative. Weather records show no significant increase in extreme temperatures or precipitation, and flooding projections predict minimal impact for Chicago.
Let’s look at the facts. What does weather.gov say about Official Extreme Weather Records for Chicago, IL?
The highest temperature was in 1934, the warmest month was July 1955, the wettest year was 2008, and the greatest 24-hour precipitation was in 1987.
Surely, there have been more days above 95°F in Chicago, IL, recently. Below is a figure from the Fifth National Climate Assessment that shows a decrease of nearly six days annually above 95°F in Chicago, IL, today relative to 1901-1960.
What are the outlooks for Chicago, IL, in terms of flooding risk? Below is a figure from Nature Climate Change that suggests an increase of about 0-5% in average annual loss related to flooding by 2050.
In fact, the Fifth National Climate Assessment has predicted a change of only 0-10% in total precipitation on the heaviest 1% of days.
In terms of coastal erosion, there has been little change in the water level of Lake Michigan in response to increasing concentrations of atmospheric GHGs.
The observational data is clear: Chicago is not facing any threats from climate change. Not in extreme temps, flooding, or coastal erosion. So then why the lawsuit?
This is a clear attempt to recoup money from failed climate-related policies that are costing taxpayers billions. For example, the city of Chicago said it’s spending $188 million on climate projects in low-income communities.
In this audacious quest for climate dollars, it appears that adherence to scientific evidence is an optional extra.
The city’s actions raise the question: Is the battle against climate change being co-opted as a convenient facade for financial mismanagement?
Chicago’s lawsuit, rather than being a noble fight for environmental justice, seems more like a high-stakes gamble with taxpayer money, betting against the oil giants in hopes of a lucrative payout.
In the end, it’s the citizens who are left asking whether their city’s leadership is fighting for the planet, or merely fighting to cover up its fiscal blunders.
Irrational Fear is written by climatologist Matthew Wielicki and is reader-supported. If you value what you read here, please consider subscribing and supporting the work that goes into it.
Top image of Chicago’s Mayor Johnson via YouTube/screencap
Read more at Irrational Fear
The Windbag City of Democrat Wind-Heads wants to rake in ill-gotten Dough they can already hear the Cash Registers KAH-CHING KAH-CHING KAH-CHING
I just sent Mike Sommers (American Petroleum Institute head) the following email:
––––––––––-*–
Greetings, Mike.
So the API (and BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Shell) are getting sued by Chicago… what if you could blast CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, due to CO2) out of the water? What if you could prove that it’s built at its very base upon mathematical fraudery which has flowed throughout the entirety of the CAGW industry? What if you could prove that it relies upon that mathematical fraudery at its very base? That what the climate alarmists claim to be happening is physically impossible? What if you could prove that what they claim to be happening egregiously violates the fundamental physical laws (which is why it’s physically impossible)?
Well, now you can. Check the attached… bog-standard quantum theory, thermodynamics, dimensional analysis, electrical theory and cavity theory, all of which hews to the fundamental physical laws. Have your scientists check it out, train some of them in its use, then unleash them on Chicago to wreak havoc. Set a precedent in court and all of the CAGW foolishness goes away. Publicize it enough, and the IPCC and most of modern CO2-doomsaying climatology goes away. No more government pushing for electric vehicles, restricting fuel-powered vehicles, implementing draconian emission rules, shutting down all but ‘renewable’ energy sources, etc.
In the attached paper, I definitively, mathematically disprove the CAGW hypothesis; I prove it is brought about via a misuse of the Stefan-Boltzmann (S-B) equation; I use the energy balance graphic from Kiehl-Trenberth (which represents the mathematics used in Energy Balance Climate Models) as an empirical example of this mathematical proof; I further prove that what the climatologists claim to be happening blatantly violates 2LoT (2nd Law of Thermodynamics) and Stefan’s Law.
Essentially, they are treating real-world graybody objects as though they are idealized blackbody objects… with emission to 0 K and emissivity of 1 (sometimes… other times they slap emissivity onto the idealized blackbody form of the S-B equation while still assuming emission to 0 K, which is still a misuse of the S-B equation, for graybody objects). This essentially isolates each object into its own system so it cannot interact with other objects via the ambient EM field, which grossly inflates radiant exitance of all objects. From this springs the wholly-fictive ‘backradiation’… a mathematical artifact due to that aforementioned misuse of the S-B equation.
You may use the attached paper however you wish… rewrite it to make it more easily understood then publish it under your own name; publish it as-is in whole or in part under your own name; round-file it; whatever. I would prefer no attribution to me. I’m not looking for recognition, I’m looking to destroy the CAGW scam before it destroys our way of life.
––––––––––-*–
It’d be hilarious if API went berserk-mode on Chicago, and in the process got a legal precedent that all of CAGW was predicated upon mathematical fraudery. LOL
If anyone wants that paper, it’s here:
https://ufile.io/gb1xn4lh
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks, I hope that the energy companies use your input. There might be a serious obstacle. Many of the top executives in the energy industry may have bought into the climate change fraud and as such are not likely to challenge it.
Alas, they’re the ones pushing hardest for CO2 credit trading and CO2 sequestration… I’m hoping that once they learn that it’s figuratively a mathematical game of thimblerig (and that we now see the climastrologists palming the pea as they shuffle the thimbles), they’ll realize that the general populace is becoming more educated and thus won’t invest in such ventures… no investment, no money. No money, no profit. No profit, no projects.
“The climate change impacts that Chicago has faced and will continue to face…”
‘Continue to’? What are they using, a Ouija board, a crystal ball, tea leaves? Or are they just following “The Science” – as trumpeted in newspaper headlines, without reading the ‘fine print’?