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

[TimG]

The lawsuits are going after them for lying to investors about factors which may hurt their profits

Except the claims made by government are simply false since Exxon has always disclosed the fact that the value of its reserves can change depending on the cost of extraction and the cost of oil. Any hypothetical government action related to climate change would impact the cost the extraction and therefore affect the profits of the company.

These actions are nothing but witch hunts designed to curry favour with people who don't care out what is right or what is fair. The fact that WestCoastRunner clearly knows nothing about why the government was acting yet she was trying to claim it was about 'transparency' and 'accountability' is a good example of the low information voter which the politicians are targeting.

Edited February 26, 2016 by TimG

[eyeball]

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

I'm sure these guys would agree with you.

[WestCoastRunner]

These actions are nothing but witch hunts designed to curry favour with people who don't care out what is right or what is fair. The fact that WestCoastRunner clearly knows nothing about why the government was acting yet she was trying to claim it was about 'transparency' and 'accountability' is a good example of the low information voter which the politicians are targeting.

I haven't read through the entirety of this thread so not sure if this information has been posted here yet:

Exxon's Own Research Confirmed Fossil Fuels' Role in Global Warming Decades Ago

"In the first place, there is general scientific agreement that the most likely manner in which mankind is influencing the global climate is through carbon dioxide release from the burning of fossil fuels," Black told Exxon's Management Committee, according to a written version he recorded later.

It was July 1977 when Exxon's leaders received this blunt assessment, well before most of the world had heard of the looming climate crisis.

His presentations reflected uncertainty running through scientific circles about the details of climate change, such as the role the oceans played in absorbing emissions. Still, Black estimated quick action was needed. "Present thinking," he wrote in the 1978 summary, "holds that man has a time window of five to ten years before the need for hard decisions regarding changes in energy strategies might become critical."

Exxon responded swiftly. Within months the company launched its own extraordinary research into carbon dioxide from fossil fuels and its impact on the earth. Exxon's ambitious program included both empirical CO2 sampling and rigorous climate modeling. It assembled a brain trust that would spend more than a decade deepening the company's understanding of an environmental problem that posed an existential threat to the oil business.

Then, toward the end of the 1980s, Exxon curtailed its carbon dioxide research. In the decades that followed, Exxon worked instead at the forefront of climate denial. It put its muscle behind efforts to manufacture doubt about the reality of global warming its own scientists had once confirmed. It lobbied to block federal and international action to control greenhouse gas emissions. It helped to erect a vast edifice of misinformation that stands to this day.

Exxon helped to found and lead the Global Climate Coalition, an alliance of some of the world's largest companies seeking to halt government efforts to curb fossil fuel emissions. Exxon used the American Petroleum Institute, right-wing think tanks, campaign contributions and its own lobbying to push a narrative that climate science was too uncertain to necessitate cuts in fossil fuel emissions.

If Exxon’s Punished for Climate Change, It’ll Be for Lying to Investors

Both states’ attorneys general are also investigating Exxon for lying to the public. Which would probably be a more satisfying conviction for climate activists, but far more difficult to land. Think of it like trying to sue Exxon for personal injury or property damage through climate change: harmed health, ruined pensions, property damage, and so on. “Even Exxon is only responsible for a tiny part of world’s emissions,” says Driesen.

Altogether, this means there’s not much hope that climate activists will see criminal charges brought against Exxon. “There are some weaknesses in the securities law, and there’s also uncertainty on the side of ExxonMobil,” says Chasalow. “That’s why I think it would ultimately be settled out of court.”

Settlements aren’t ideal, because even though they hit against a company’s bottom line, they don’t hold it legally responsible to change its behavior. But that’s not to say the public shame of being brought to settle won’t nudge Exxon in the right direction. And the threat of a big government settlement could convince other fossil fuel corporations to clean up their acts. “These companies are big enough that they could get away from oil and start investing in renewables, or nuclear,” says Driesen. “They could invest in anything.” For once, laws meant to protect Wall Street could end up helping everyone.

Edited February 27, 2016 by WestCoastRunner

[TimG]

I haven't read through the entirety of this thread so not sure if this information has been posted here yet:

Lots of red meat for the low information voter. No real substance.

All of the science done on climate change was done in the public. This includes any papers that Exxon contributed to. Nothing was kept secret from anyone. More importantly, the question of what to do about CO2 is an OPINION - not a fact. And it was in the opinion of Exxon that nothing needed to be done. The fact that climate alarmists and other chicken littles think we should close down are economy because of the risk of bad things in the future is not an opinion that any corporation has an obligation to advertise.

That is why the "charges" really nothing but non-disclosure of risks to shareholders. But that is a false charge too because all Exxon reports include a caveat that all of the reserves could increase or decrease in value depending on costs, demand and other factors beyond Exxon's control. Changes to government regulation are one of those risks.

No matter how bafflegab you though up these actions are politically motivated witch hunts designed to appeal to voters looking for a public lynching. There is no principal being defended. No consumer being protected. It is simple abuse of government power.

Edited February 27, 2016 by TimG

[WestCoastRunner]

Lots of red meat for the low information voter. No real substance.

All of the science done on climate change was done in the public. This includes any papers that Exxon contributed to. Nothing was kept secret from anyone. More importantly, the question of what to do about CO2 is an OPINION - not a fact. And it was in the opinion of Exxon that nothing needed to be done. The fact that climate alarmists and other chicken littles think we should close down are economy because of the risk of bad things in the future is not an opinion that any corporation has an obligation to advertise.

That is why the "charges" really nothing but non-disclosure of risks to shareholders. But that is a false charge too because all Exxon reports include a caveat that all of the reserves could increase or decrease in value depending on costs, demand and other factors beyond Exxon's control. Changes to government regulation are one of those risks.

No matter how bafflegab you though up these actions are politically motivated witch hunts designed to appeal to voters looking for a public lynching. There is no principal being defended. No consumer being protected. It is simple abuse of government power.

Your skills as spokesperson for the oil industry lack substance.

[TimG]

Your skills as spokesperson for the oil industry lack substance.

They have lots of substance which is why you can't refute the points I am making.

In any case, the issue is bigger for me than just the oil industry. It is about how politicians abuse government power to engage in witch hunts that target unpopular people or organizations. The unwillingness of many to recognize these witch hunts for what they are is truly frightening.

Edited February 27, 2016 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

They have lots of substance which is why you can't refute the points I am making.

In any case, the issue is bigger for me than just the oil industry. It is about how politicians abuse government power to engage in witch hunts that target unpopular people or organizations. The unwillingness of many to recognize these witch hunts for what they are is truly frightening.

I see you have handily dismissed the part about the reality of global warming Exxon's own scientists had confirmed. Oh well as mentioned, if the fallout causes them, and others, to invest in renewables, we will all benefit.

[TimG]

I see you have handily dismissed the part about the reality of global warming Exxon's own scientists had confirmed.

Sigh. It seems like no matter how many times it is explained to you still insist on peddling the falsehood that 'accepting that warming is occurring means we should do something about it'. Sorry it does not. I doubt you could any evidence that Exxon said that warming was not occurring. All they did is argue against self defeating and harmful government policies justified as a response to warming.

[On Guard for Thee]

Sigh. It seems like no matter how many times it is explained to you still insist on peddling the falsehood that 'accepting that warming is occurring means we should do something about it'. Sorry it does not. I doubt you could any evidence that Exxon said that warming was not occurring. All they did is argue against self defeating and harmful government policies justified as a response to warming.

You sigh all you want, but most of the world's actual environmental scientists have concluded there is a need to do something about what Exxon and others tried to say wasn't happening. Which is not unexpected due to the impact on it's stock and trade. However if they are smart, and I think they are as I used to work for them, they will transition into other, better forms of energy production.

[WestCoastRunner]

Sigh. It seems like no matter how many times it is explained to you still insist on peddling the falsehood that 'accepting that warming is occurring means we should do something about it'. Sorry it does not. I doubt you could any evidence that Exxon said that warming was not occurring. All they did is argue against self defeating and harmful government policies justified as a response to warming.

They aren't arguing against government policies. They were caught red-handed covering up evidence of the dangers to humanity as far back as 1977 from their own researchers.

"At a meeting in Exxon Corporation's headquarters, a senior company scientist named James F. Black addressed an audience of powerful oilmen. Speaking without a text as he flipped through detailed slides, Black delivered a sobering message: carbon dioxide from the world's use of fossil fuels would warm the planet and could eventually endanger humanity."

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/15092015/Exxons-own-research-confirmed-fossil-fuels-role-in-global-warming

[TimG]

Exxon and others tried to say wasn't happening.

Well back in the 1990s this was a scientifically supportable conclusion since there was no evidence that warming was greater than random noise. By 2000, the warming trend was more evident but agreeing that warming was occurring does not mean it is a bad thing. The insistence that it is a bad thing is nothing but self serving political activism and no corporation is required to promote political opinions.

[TimG]

They aren't arguing against government policies. They were caught red-handed covering up evidence of the dangers to humanity as far back as 1977 from their own researchers.

Again, what does this have to do with anything? Exxon was not hiding information that was not available to the public. Hypothetical scenarios where CO2 induced warming is bad does not imply that any particular government policy is useful or helpful and when Exxon involved itself in the political process it was opposing specific policies.

The trouble with your argument is it is based on the delusion that something different should have happened. The fact is we will keep using fossil fuels whether you like it or not until a more cost effective alternative appears. Despite the massive resources dumped into the problem we are not any closer to finding that alternative. All we really have done is prove that fossil fuels are pretty efficient at delivering the energy we need.

Edited February 27, 2016 by TimG

[WestCoastRunner]

The fact is we will keep using fossil fuels whether you like it or not until a more cost effective alternative appears. Despite the massive resources dumped into the problem we are not any closer to finding that alternative. All we really have done is prove that fossil fuels are pretty efficient at delivering the energy we need.

What does this have to do with the OP. Another low information post.

[On Guard for Thee]

Well back in the 1990s this was a scientifically supportable conclusion since there was no evidence that warming was greater than random noise. By 2000, the warming trend was more evident but agreeing that warming was occurring does not mean it is a bad thing. The insistence that it is a bad thing is nothing but self serving political activism and no corporation is required to promote political opinions.

Scientists as far back as the 70's concluded that global warming was occuring and that it was being caused by human activity. And I guess if you don't think it's a bad thing, you don't live in Florida, or the Maldives, or have a farm in California.

[-1=e^ipi]

Scientists as far back as the 70's concluded that global warming was occuring and that it was being caused by human activity.

Nah. In 1896, Noble prize winner Arrhenius was calculating how changes in atmospheric CO2 could affect global temperatures. It goes much further back than the 1970's.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius

His estimation of the magnitude of the effect was fairly close to reality:

"If the quantity of carbonic acid [CO₂] in the air should sink to one-half its present percentage, the temperature would fall by about 4°; a diminution to one-quarter would reduce the temperature by 8°. On the other hand, any doubling of the percentage of carbon dioxide in the air would raise the temperature of the earth's surface by 4°; and if the carbon dioxide were increased fourfold, the temperature would rise by 8°."

Edited February 28, 2016 by -1=e^ipi

[On Guard for Thee]

Nah. In 1896, Noble prize winner Arrhenius was calculating how changes in atmospheric CO2 could affect global temperatures. It goes much further back than the 1970's.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius

His estimation of the magnitude of the effect was fairly close to reality:

"If the quantity of carbonic acid [CO₂] in the air should sink to one-half its present percentage, the temperature would fall by about 4°; a diminution to one-quarter would reduce the temperature by 8°. On the other hand, any doubling of the percentage of carbon dioxide in the air would raise the temperature of the earth's surface by 4°; and if the carbon dioxide were increased fourfold, the temperature would rise by 8°."

That's when he proposed his theory. It wasn't until later that any sort of accurate climate recording came into effect to back up the theory.

[TimG]

Scientists as far back as the 70's concluded that global warming was occuring and that it was being caused by human activity. And I guess if you don't think it's a bad thing, you don't live in Florida, or the Maldives, or have a farm in California.

From the IPPC Report 1995:

balance of evidence . . .suggests a discernible human influence on global climate” (p. 22).”

So as late as 1995 scientists were NOT sure of the human influence which more or less proves that people accusing Exxon of hiding *facts* are peddling nonsense.

Mean while what gets lost is what Exxon actually claims (rather than the over the top nonsense Exxon bashers make up to rationalize their perverse belief system) is that the climate models are not as accurate as people claim and that CO2 reduction policies are misguided and counter productive. Both are opinions which anyone is entitled to have no one can prove that they are invalid or "wrong" opinions.

No matter how you cut this is a witch hunt and it is rather pathetic that people cheer on witch hunts when they don't the targets because 'the ends justify the means'.

Edited February 29, 2016 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

From the IPPC Report 1995:

So as late as 1995 scientists were NOT sure of the human influence which more or less proves that people accusing Exxon of hiding *facts* are peddling nonsense.

Mean while what gets lost is what Exxon actually claims (rather than the over the top nonsense Exxon bashers make up to rationalize their perverse belief system) is that the climate models are not as accurate as people claim and that CO2 reduction policies are misguided and counter productive. Both are opinions which anyone is entitled to have no one can prove that they are invalid or "wrong" opinions.

No matter how you cut this is a witch hunt and it is rather pathetic that people cheer on witch hunts when they don't the targets because 'the ends justify the means'.

Oh? Apparently your so called "witch hunt" began long before 1995.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm