jbg Posted November 8, 2015 Report Posted November 8, 2015 In this article, Exxon Mobil Investigated for Possible Climate Change Lies by New York Attorney General , we learn the new tack for climate alarmists; terrorize any person or company with the temerity to differ with the "party line." Excerpts: The New York attorney general has begun an investigation of Exxon Mobil to determine whether the company lied to the public about the risks of climate change or to investors about how such risks might hurt the oil business. According to people with knowledge of the investigation, Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman issued a subpoena Wednesday evening to Exxon Mobil, demanding extensive financial records, emails and other documents. ******** he people with knowledge of the New York case also said on Thursday that, in a separate inquiry, Peabody Energy, the nation’s largest coal producer, had been under investigation by the attorney general for two years over whether it properly disclosed financial risks related to climate change. Now I personally reject the notion that corporations have any speech rights but the U.S. Supreme Court doesn't agree with me. As long as corporations have the right to "speak" their "minds" opinions should not be the subject of investigation. Especially when no law or treaty to which the U.S. is signatory bars Exxon Mobil or Peabody Coal from any activities based on climate change. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Guest Posted November 8, 2015 Report Posted November 8, 2015 If they lied about Climate Change to sell shares to investors then they would be guilty of fraud. If they just lied, then, yes, it's ridiculous. Quote
jbg Posted November 8, 2015 Author Report Posted November 8, 2015 If they lied about Climate Change to sell shares to investors then they would be guilty of fraud. If they just lied, then, yes, it's ridiculous. How can you lie about an opinion? Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Guest Posted November 8, 2015 Report Posted November 8, 2015 Yeah, you're right. I posted without thinking about it first. Quote
TimG Posted November 8, 2015 Report Posted November 8, 2015 (edited) to investors about how such risks might hurt the oil business.What the CAGW loons want is for companies like Exxon to starting telling shareholders that their company has no value because global regulation will eventually make it it impossible for them to operate. Obviously every company faces risks from idiotic governments but it is completely unreasonable to expect a corporation to undermine itself by claiming such an outcome is inevitable. More importantly, they already state that their reserves are a function of the price of oil. IOW, there is a stated risk that if alternative technologies lower the price of oil then that will impact the prospects for the company. They could be clearer about what might impact the price of oil but anyone reading the report would already have this knowledge. Edited November 8, 2015 by TimG Quote
jbg Posted November 8, 2015 Author Report Posted November 8, 2015 How can you lie about an opinion? No problem. I've done worse. Even gotten suspended for joking about Hugo Chavez. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
The_Squid Posted November 8, 2015 Report Posted November 8, 2015 If they new that climate change is real and they decided to lie about it, that may be fraudulent. If a corporation is committing fraud, then they should be punished for it. Quote
TimG Posted November 8, 2015 Report Posted November 8, 2015 (edited) If they new that climate change is real and they decided to lie about it, that may be fraudulent. If a corporation is committing fraud, then they should be punished for it.Classic lazy thinking. Corporations don't have any obligation to prattle on about the various political obsessions of the day. They have an obligation to report risks to shareholders. Climate change is not a credible risk to Exxon shareholders at this time no matter how much the chattering classes scream. That said, government insanity that results in punitive regulations is a risk that was reported. What is happening here is CAGW fanatics need a villain because that is the only way they can rationalize their extremist ideology. They can't turn every person who drives their car or turns on their furnace into a villain so they create conspiracies involving big bad corporations. It is pathetic and sad. Edited November 8, 2015 by TimG Quote
eyeball Posted November 9, 2015 Report Posted November 9, 2015 How can you lie about an opinion?By denying that it's a fact. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
jbg Posted November 9, 2015 Author Report Posted November 9, 2015 Just from reading this thread man-influenced "climate change" is a religion. It certainly hasn't been proven, but denying it can be criminal. A lot like the Salem (Massachusetts) witch trials. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Smeelious Posted November 9, 2015 Report Posted November 9, 2015 Anywho, the actual case seems to stem from what EM told its investors vs what its own research was saying. IF what their research said one thing and the company told their investors the opposite...That could be fraud. If in house research says that smoking does cause cancer and they sell to the investors that it clearly doesn't... Good luck proving that level of harm for climate change. Honestly the case is likely to be tossed. Quote
TimG Posted November 9, 2015 Report Posted November 9, 2015 Anywho, the actual case seems to stem from what EM told its investors vs what its own research was saying. IF what their research said one thing and the company told their investors the opposite...That could be fraud.Except Exxon is not in a position to do any climate research. They, like everyone else, depend on government funded scientists looking into the topic. Given that context there is no case. This is simply an exercise in political grand-standing by CAGW zealots looking to create villains to rationalize their extremist ideology. Quote
Smeelious Posted November 9, 2015 Report Posted November 9, 2015 http://cdn.exxonmobil.com/~/media/global/files/energy-and-environment/climate_peer_reviewed_publications_1980s_forward.pdf Papers citing Exxon on climate change. Anywho, I haven't read these, but the article posted in the OP says they mostly agree with "mainstream climatology" whatever that means. I take it to mean that exxon published/funded/supported papers that show climate change is real...so how they defrauded their investors while publishing publicly available papers is and odd one. Quote
Michael Hardner Posted November 9, 2015 Report Posted November 9, 2015 It certainly hasn't been proven, but denying it can be criminal. A lot like the Salem (Massachusetts) witch trials. Or hate crimes that are defined by questioning the facts of WW2's treatment of people. There are, you see, examples where lying does real damage and we enforce that in policy in many ways. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
TimG Posted November 9, 2015 Report Posted November 9, 2015 (edited) I take it to mean that exxon published/funded/supported papers that show climate change is real...so how they defrauded their investors while publishing publicly available papers is and odd one.Except this narrative is nonsense that only makes sense in the irrational CAGW echo chamber were expressing any doubt about climate change policies is labelled as "denying the science". In the real world people can have nuanced opinions that agree with the basic findings of the AGW science but disagree on the reliability and relevance of future predictions created with climate models. Disagreeing with CAWG claims is not "fraud". Edited November 9, 2015 by TimG Quote
-1=e^ipi Posted November 9, 2015 Report Posted November 9, 2015 Or hate crimes that are defined by questioning the facts of WW2's treatment of people. Why not just let the people that disagree about the historic account of WW2 have their opinion and just explain why they are wrong? Quote
Smeelious Posted November 9, 2015 Report Posted November 9, 2015 Except this narrative is nonsense that only makes sense in the irrational CAGW echo chamber were expressing any doubt about climate change policies is labelled as "denying the science". In the real world people can have nuanced opinions that agree with the basic findings of the AGW science but disagree on the reliability and relevance of future predictions created with climate models. Disagreeing with CAWG claims is not "fraud". Though I'm not sure that we are really disagreeing about anything (in this case) If a company is funding/whatevering research that says one thing, while telling the investors things counter to said research, I'd call that fraud. Again, I'm mostly saying that didn't happen in this case, since the research was available anyway. The article doesn't really delve into specifics, so I can't actually comment on what alleged fraud occurred. "Climate Change" is too broad a claim in this case anyway. Exxon would have to have had specific and concrete evidence of their operations having definite negative effects on the environment, and then specifically lied about it to investors. And, I think in this case since it was the investors that were allegedly defrauded, they would have to bring the suit themselves. With claims such as "We were promised that the operations would not negatively impact the environment, which has shown to be false!" But even then, based on the research, which agrees with "mainstream" research, I can't see how they were actually defrauded. Quote
Michael Hardner Posted November 9, 2015 Report Posted November 9, 2015 ... just explain why they are wrong? Because that doesn't always work so well ? There are lots of examples of collective efforts to mediate what is true and not. Some are successful. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
-1=e^ipi Posted November 10, 2015 Report Posted November 10, 2015 Because that doesn't always work so well ? There are lots of examples of collective efforts to mediate what is true and not. Some are successful. So? Let them have freedom of thought and freedom of speech. If they want to argue the moon is made of cheese and believe it dogmatically, so be it. In the long run the best ideas win in the free market place of ideas. Quote
Bonam Posted November 10, 2015 Report Posted November 10, 2015 (edited) So? Let them have freedom of thought and freedom of speech. If they want to argue the moon is made of cheese and believe it dogmatically, so be it. In the long run the best ideas win in the free market place of ideas. I agree with letting people have freedom of speech, but as for the best ideas winning out in the long run... not so sure. After all, humankind has been around for thousands of years and yet religion is still here. Also, for some ideas, like Nazism and communism, the long run may be too long and one could argue that less harm would be done by violating free speech rights to stamp them out than to let them gain too much sway and inevitably cause millions of deaths. Edited November 10, 2015 by Bonam Quote
-1=e^ipi Posted November 10, 2015 Report Posted November 10, 2015 I agree with letting people have freedom of speech, but as for the best ideas winning out in the long run... not so sure. After all, humankind has been around for thousands of years and yet religion is still here. Give it another million years. Long run, very long run ! Also, for some ideas, like Nazism and communism, the long run may be too long and one could argue that less harm would be done by violating free speech rights to stamp them out than to let them gain too much sway and inevitably cause millions of deaths. To be fair though, nazism and communism came to and kept power largely as a result of preventing freedom of speech and preventing opposing ideas. Quote
Bonam Posted November 10, 2015 Report Posted November 10, 2015 Give it another million years. Long run, very long run ! One can hope. To be fair though, nazism and communism came to and kept power largely as a result of preventing freedom of speech and preventing opposing ideas. They kept power as a result of preventing freedom of speech, yes. But they didn't come to power that way. That said, it's impossible to predict what ideas are not only bad but also have the ability to actually gain enough of a following to cause serious harm. So I'm definitely not arguing for limiting freedom of speech in the hopes of stopping potentially harmful ideologies. Just pointing out that a "free marketplace of ideas" doesn't always come to the best ideas, and even if it does, sometimes only too late, once the bad ideas have been tested with disastrous results. The reason for free speech and the "free marketplace of ideas" is based on fundamental principles of individual rights, rather than the assumption that it will always necessarily lead to the best results. Quote
-1=e^ipi Posted November 10, 2015 Report Posted November 10, 2015 The reason for free speech and the "free marketplace of ideas" is based on fundamental principles of individual right I don't really agree with you here. I'm a consequentialist, so I justify freedom of speech due to its good outcomes, rather than due to some 'inalienable rights'. I'm not even sure these fundamental principles you refer to exist. Quote
Michael Hardner Posted November 10, 2015 Report Posted November 10, 2015 In the long run the best ideas win in the free market place of ideas. Leaving 'the moon is made of cheese' into the marketplace of ideas is fine, but not 'vaccines cause autism'. The second argument is dead wrong, and designed to fool people... the results of which can impact others. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
TimG Posted November 10, 2015 Report Posted November 10, 2015 (edited) Leaving 'the moon is made of cheese' into the marketplace of ideas is fine, but not 'vaccines cause autism'. The second argument is dead wrong, and designed to fool people... the results of which can impact others.While I agree that the 'vaccines cause autism' argument is dangerous I certainly don't agree that it be suppressed largely because I don't trust the processes used to decide what should be suppressed and what should not be suppressed. It is not a lot different from the death penalty which I can support academically for anecdotal cases but reject it as an option because I don't trust the processes used to determine if someone deserves such a penalty. Edited November 10, 2015 by TimG Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.