Oil Companies Don’t Produce CO2, Car and Truck Drivers Do


Reminiscent of the “Guns Don’t Kill People, People Kill People” argument, the SF Judge Alsup presiding over CA vs. Big Oil Lawsuit asked a very interesting, and potentially, very damaging question for either the plaintiff or society at large. In the document titled: Case 3:17-cv-06012-WHA Document 161 Filed 03/27/18, the judge asks:

If plaintiffs’ theory is correct, why wouldn’t everyone involved in supplying carbonbased fuels (or in otherwise increasing carbon dioxide, e.g., deforestation) be liable upon a showing that they questioned the science of global warming or sponsored research intending to question it?

The way this question is answered possibly puts everyone on the face of the globe at risk. Oil companies don’t produce CO2, they produce oil and gasoline. Those products can be used for many purposes other than internal combustion. I’ve used gasoline to kill grass and as a solvent, and I’ve used oil to lubricate chains. Using the product of Big Oil for those purposes didn’t generate CO2. Only when I decided to burn the gasoline in an internal combustion engine was CO2 created. CO2 was created not by the production of gasoline, but by my decision to burn the gasoline. If I buy a gun and shoot someone, we don’t prosecute the gun company, we prosecute the person that pulled the trigger. People like Arnold Schwartzineger and Al Gore, who publically acknowledge the dangers of CO2, and then fly off in their private jets to homes that consume the energy of a small village, are potentially the most at risk. They acknowledge the harm CO2 does, and then turn around and produce astronomical quantities of it. That is the political equivalent of a pro-life candidate having an abortion.

CO2 also isn’t the only cause of warming. The Urban Heat Island Effect is universally accepted and easily documented. No one, skeptic or alarmist, denies that the Urban Heat Island Effect exists. If warming is the problem, shouldn’t all major causes of warming then be prosecuted? The concrete and asphalt in LA, SF, and Oakland is the warming equivalent of billions of tons of CO2. That fact is easily documented by simply looking at the temperature trends in major cities vs untouched wooded areas nearby.

Lastly, by controlling for the Urban Heat Island Effect and H2O to isolate the impact of CO2 on temperature, it is discovered that CO2 does not impact temperatures in the lower atmosphere where all ground-based temperature measurements and most glaciers are located. If you test the hypothesis “Man-made CO2 does not impact global temperatures” on ice-core data, the hypothesis is not rejected. There is nothing statistically abnormal about the variability of the temperatures over the past 150 years when compared to the entire Holocene period.

Please Like, Share, Subscribe and Comment

12 thoughts on “Oil Companies Don’t Produce CO2, Car and Truck Drivers Do”

  1. Dads with pretty daughters MADE people.

    I disagree with you, Co2islife, but at this moment, I feel it is society as a whole that is responsible of carbon dioxide emissions. There are no oil companies like there are tobacco companies. There is also no conspiracy going on, other than that of AGAINST some brands like Exxon.


    1. Yep, the Oil companies are deliberately avoiding funding research that may be contradictory to the AGW theory. The people involved in the SF Lawsuit all disclosed that they were not funded by Big Oil, and yet they are accused of being on their payroll. The Tobacco Settlement has corporations afraid to even defend themselves, which is a true tragedy because it simply rewards those who are corrupt and will take advantage of the system. I made a post back titled “This is what a Conspiracy Looks Like” that you may enjoy.


  2. The lawsuits ask the courts to hold these companies responsible for the costs of sea walls and other infrastructure necessary to protect San Francisco and Oakland from ongoing and future consequences of climate change and sea level rise caused by the companies’ production of massive amounts of fossil fuels.

    Little secondary problem with their ‘Sea Level Rise’. Taken from the SAN FRANCISCO / TIDES OF HISTORY / Presidio gauge has measured the bay’s rise and fall for 150 years
    Over the years, the gauges also showed a gradual rise in the sea level — eight inches in 150 years. However, there was also a period of 38 years, ending in 1913, when the sea level declined.
    The San Francisco gauge also measured other phenomena — such as the effect of the El Niño condition on water levels. The highest tide ever recorded was on Jan. 27, 1983, when the surface of the water at the Golden Gate reached 8.78 feet above mean sea level, or zero. The lowest tide was on Dec. 17, 1933, with minus 2.9 feet. The 1983 high tide accompanied a downpour associated with the El Niño condition; the lowest accompanied a period of the exact opposite condition.
    The normal tidal range is about 5.8 feet, more when the moon is full. The tide also affects the currents in the bay, which are strongest in the Golden Gate, and in the San Pablo and Carquinez straits.


    So an El Niño and NOT CO2, i.e. when that 1 meter higher sea level by Japan sloshed back to the west & a lot of rain runoff caused the RECORD HIGHEST. And since 1983, it has NEVER BEEN HIGHER. So why the need for Sea Walls now?


    1. Tide walls need to be constructed to prevent the anomalous events like an earth quake triggered rise, not the gradual slow increase. BTW, thermal expansion is blamed for most of the rise. How does CO2 warm the oceans?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s