Climate Denial, i.e. Free Speech Now Subect to Prosecution

[TimG]

You didn't read the article....

Nothing in the article contradicts what I said. Try reading the words in the article instead of inserting the words that you think should be there.

Basically, AGW zealots think that oil reserves should be discounted because eventually climate change regulations will make it impossible extract. This is just an opinion by clueless people with no understanding of the energy system. While it is a possibility that governments would do some idiotic things no corporation should be expected to include 'future idiocy by governments' as a business risk (it goes without saying). That said, Exxon has stated for years that estimates of reserves depend on economics and changes to the economics of extraction will affect the prospects of the corporation. This would cover the possibility that economic alternatives to oil appear so there is not much else to disclose.

This entire story exists only because CAGW zealots want Exxon to peddle their unsubstantiated propaganda instead of simply discussing the business risks. It has nothing to do with shareholder protection.

Edited December 11, 2015 by TimG

[The_Squid]

Exxon is not in any position to any research on the topic of climate change other than review the publicly available research. Any internal "research" would have simply summarized the opinions from the IPCC and other organizations. .

From the NY Times article, with references to research:

The history at Exxon Mobil appears to differ, in that the company published extensive research over decades that largely lined up with mainstream climatology.

Nothing in the article contradicts what I said.

Other than it's exactly opposite of what you claim it says.

Edited December 11, 2015 by The_Squid

[TimG]

The history at Exxon Mobil appears to differ, in that the company published extensive research over decades that largely lined up with mainstream climatology.

Published -- meaning publicly available. i.e. not secret.

More importantly, the phrasing of the article has the typical AGW zealot slant that implies that if someone agrees with the basic science that one cannot question the various policies put forward. Nothing could be further from the truth. i.e. even thought Exxon had to be aware of the publicly available science that does not mean they have any obligation to parrot policy propoganda that AWG zealots want to push. The two things are completely disconnected.

Of course, Exxon won't get a fair hearing because the administration is filled with AGW zealots that cannot understand where the science end and their religion begins and they simply want to punish Exxon for failing to show obeisance to their religion.

Edited December 11, 2015 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

Published -- meaning publicly available. i.e. not secret.

More importantly, the phrasing of the article has the typical AGW zealot slant that implies that if someone agrees with the basic science that one cannot question the various policies put forward. Nothing could be further from the truth. i.e. even thought Exxon had to be aware of the publicly available science that does not mean they have any obligation to parrot policy propoganda that AWG zealots want to push. The two things are completely disconnected.

Of course, Exxon won't get a fair hearing because the administration is filled with AGW zealots that cannot understand where the science end and their religion begins and they simply want to punish Exxon for failing to show obeisance to their religion.

Apparently Exxon Mobil has their own "zealots"

https://exxonmobil.com/Benelux-English/energy_climate.aspx

[ReeferMadness]

Maryland becomes the latest jurisdiction to indicate it is considering investigating the behavior of Exxon publicly denying climate change while privately preparing for it.

In response to a petition calling for an investigation of ExxonMobil, Maryland Attorney General Brian E. Frosh said his office will "hold accountable any individuals and corporations who have intentionally contributed" to climate change.

[TimG]

Maryland becomes the latest jurisdiction to indicate it is considering investigating the behavior of Exxon publicly denying climate change while privately preparing for it.

Translation: self serving politician looking for votes decides to use government power to harass a corporation.

[WestCoastRunner]

Translation: self serving politician looking for votes decides to use government power to harass a corporation.

Perhaps but why not if it reveals some ugly truths. Politics is dirty.

Edited February 25, 2016 by WestCoastRunner

[TimG]

Perhaps but why not if it reveals some ugly truths. Politics is dirty.

Such abuse of government power may be fine when it is used against targets you dislike but what happens when different politicians use the same power to go after targets you like? My guess is you would be outraged which is why politically motivated witch hunts are always bad.

In any case, the allegations against Exxon are simply absurd and nothing more than an attempt by CO2 fanatics create a false equivalence between tobacco and oil companies.

[WestCoastRunner]

In any case, the allegations against Exxon are simply absurd and nothing more than an attempt by CO2 fanatics create a false equivalence between tobacco and oil companies.

I have previously mentioned this equivalence and I'm not a fanatic.

[WestCoastRunner]

Such abuse of government power may be fine when it is used against targets you dislike but what happens when different politicians use the same power to go after targets you like? My guess is you would be outraged which is why politically motivated witch hunts are always bad.

.

Dirty politics is here to stay. We need to adjust and deal with it no matter which side of the issue we are on.

[TimG]

I have previously mentioned this equivalence and I'm not a fanatic.

If you believe there is an equivalence then you are a fanatic. As I mentioned above oil companies have no obligation parrot particular activist narratives in their annual reports. Nor do oil companies have access to information on the topic that other people do not so no one can accuse them of hiding anything. Lastly, agreeing that CO2 is increasing temperatures does not require any agreement on the policies to deal with the problem. Edited February 25, 2016 by TimG

[WestCoastRunner]

If you believe there is an equivalence then you are a fanatic. As I mentioned above oil companies have no obligation parrot particular activist narratives in their annual reports. Nor do oil companies have access to information on the topic that other people do not so no one can accuse them of hiding anything. Lastly, agreeing that CO2 is increasing temperatures does not require any agreement on the policies to deal with the problem.

why are you so afraid of transparency?

[TimG]

why are you so afraid of transparency?

This has nothing to do with "transparency". This is about activists expecting Exxon to put political statements in their annual reports as far back as the 1970s. It is an unreasonable expectation but it arises because way too many CO2 activists cannot separate actual facts from their opinions. Edited February 26, 2016 by TimG

[WestCoastRunner]

This has nothing to do with "transparency". This is about activists expecting Exxon to put political statements in their annual reports as far back as the 1970s. It is an unreasonable expectation but it arises because way too many CO2 activists are not able to separate facts from their opinions.

You seem to like the word 'activist'. I don't consider myself nor my friends as 'activists' but you love to throw this label around as if it's derogatory. We are simply your average citizen looking for corporations to be held accountable.

[TimG]

We are simply your average citizen looking for corporations to be held accountable.

ROTFL. You are a partisan cheering because a politician has decided to attack a corporation you don't like. For example, the Conservative government went after charities for violating the law and I assume you weren't cheering that action. Why is asking charities to follow the law any less worthy than 'holding corporations accountable'? Edited February 26, 2016 by TimG

[WestCoastRunner]

ROTFL. You are a partisan cheering because a politician has decided to attack a corporation you don't like. For example, the Conservative government went after charities for violating the law and I assume you weren't cheering that action. Why is asking charities to follow the law any less worthy than 'holding corporations accountable'?

Wtf? Charities? What has this to do with anything I've spoken to?

Edited February 26, 2016 by WestCoastRunner

[TimG]

Wtf? Charities? What has this to do with anything I've spoken to?

Yes it does. You claim you are just a citizen wanting to 'corporations held accountable' yet you have not explained what wrong doing you think Exxon is guilty of. I argue that you are a biased partisan that is just happy to see a politician go after a company that you don't like and your position has nothing to do with a desire for 'transparency' or 'accountability' (I doubt you even know what the issue is).

I brought up the charities to prove my point because if you we really a non-biased citizen looking for accountability you should have been happy to see the Conservatives crack down on charities that broke the rules. Were you? Or did you complain that the Conservatives were engaging in a politically motivated witch hunt? If the latter is true then that proves my point about you being a partisan and a desire for 'transparency' or 'accountability' have nothing to do with your support for the Maryland politician.

Edited February 26, 2016 by TimG

[WestCoastRunner]

Yes it does. You claim you are just a citizen wanting to 'corporations held accountable' yet you have not explained what wrong doing you think Exxon is guilty of. I argue that you are a biased partisan that is just happy to see a politician go after a company that you don't like and your position has nothing to do with a desire for 'transparency' or 'accountability'.

I brought up the charities to prove my point because if you we really a non-biased citizen looking for accountability you should have been happy to see the Conservatives crack down on charities that broke the rules. Were you? Or did you complain that the Conservatives were engaging in a politically motivated witch hunt? If the latter is true then that proves my point about you being a partisan and a desire for 'transparency' or 'accountability' have nothing to do with it.

Sorry dude. You are grasping at straws here dragging in the charity bs. I believe Exxon needs to be held accountable. They have massive profits and devastating impacts on the environment. Again, why are you afraid of transparency?

[TimG]

They have massive profits and devastating impacts on the environment.

IOW, Exxon is 'bad' so you like to see it persecuted by politicians.

[WestCoastRunner]

IOW, Exxon is 'bad' so you like to see it persecuted by politicians.

In other words, you want to see them not held accountable to their massive profits at the expense of the environment/climate.

[TimG]

In other words, you want to see them not held accountable to their massive profits at the expense of the environment/climate.

Except the action in Maryland has nothing to do with that. It is about going after Exxon for failing to put political opinions which activists feel are "truths" into their annual report. It has nothing to do with profits. It has nothing to do with the environment. The reasons you give to support such actions is simply proving my point: you are a partisan cheering because a government is abusing its authority in order to persecute a company that you think is 'evil'.

[WestCoastRunner]

Except the action in Maryland has nothing to do with that. It is about going after Exxon for failing to put political opinions which activists feel are "truths" into their annual report. It has nothing to do with profits. It has nothing to do with the environment. The reasons you give to support such actions is simply proving my point: you are a partisan cheering because a government is abusing its authority in order to persecute a company that you think is 'evil'.

Exxon has everything to do with the environment no matter the angle they are being approached from. And everything to do with profits.

[TimG]

Exxon has everything to do with the environment no matter the angle they are being approached from. And everything to do with profits.

Yeah, I get it. You are mindless vigilante that does not care why the government goes after Exxon or even if the government is fair. All you care about is government goes after the "evil" Exxon because Exxon makes money selling a product that our society needs to function.

People like you are why government is so dangerous.

[ReeferMadness]

Yeah, I get it. You are mindless vigilante that does not care why the government goes after Exxon or even if the government is fair. All you care about is government goes after the "evil" Exxon because Exxon makes money selling a product that our society needs to function.

People like you are why government is so dangerous.

Nice ad hominem attack. I've been banned for far less.

[ReeferMadness]

Sorry dude. You are grasping at straws here dragging in the charity bs. I believe Exxon needs to be held accountable. They have massive profits and devastating impacts on the environment. Again, why are you afraid of transparency?

The sad thing is that there seem to be no laws that prevent Exxon from withholding information and misleading the public about the effects of using their products. The lawsuits are going after them for lying to investors about factors which may hurt their profits, not lying to the public about damaging the environment and biosphere.

This is much like Al Capone being imprisoned on tax evasion.