by Andy May
New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman has accused ExxonMobil of lying to the public and investors about the risks of climate change according to the NY Times and has launched an investigation and issued a subpoena demanding extensive financial records, emails and other documents.
Massachusetts, the US Virgin Islands, and California are also investigating ExxonMobil. It is interesting that all but one of the attorneys general are Democrats. The remaining attorney general is Claude Walker of the US Virgin Islands who is a Green leaning Independent. So, this is a very partisan investigation, carefully coordinated with anti-fossil fuel activists. How much is there to it?
I’ve reviewed the 22 internal documents from 1977 to 1989 made available by ExxonMobil here. I’ve also reviewed what I could find on 104 publications (most are peer-reviewed) with ExxonMobil personnel as authors or co-authors. For some of the peer-reviewed articles I only had an abstract and for some I could find the reference but no abstract or text without paying a fee. Below this short essay is an annotated bibliography of all 22 internal documents and 89 of the published papers. The documents are interesting reading, they fill in the history of modern climate science very well. Much of the current debate on climate change was being debated in the same way, and often with the same uncertainties, in 1977.
Between 1977 and the fifth IPCC report in 2013 ExxonMobil Corporate Research in New Jersey investigated the effect of increasing CO2 on climate. If they withheld or suppressed climate research from the public or shareholders, it is not apparent in these documents. Further, if they found any definitive evidence of an impending man-made climate catastrophe, I didn’t see it. The climate researchers at ExxonMobil participated in the second, third, fourth and fifth IPCC assessment reports making major contributions in mapping the carbon cycle and in climate modeling. They calculated the potential impact of man-made CO2 in several publications. They investigated methods of sequestering CO2 and adapting to climate change. They also investigated several potential biofuels.
The internal documents are generally summaries of published work by outside researchers. Some of the documents are notes from climate conferences or meetings with the DOE (Department of Energy). For many of the internal documents one has to read carefully to separate what is being said by the writer and what he is reporting from outside research. Exxon (and later ExxonMobil) did some original research, particularly making ocean and atmospheric measurements of CO2 from their tankers. But, most of what they produced was by funding research at Columbia University or the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. All of their internal research and the work at Columbia was published as far as I can tell, so it is difficult to accuse them of hiding anything from the public or shareholders.
At the heart of Schneiderman’s accusation, according to the NY Times, is a list of statements made by ExxonMobil executives that he believes contradict the internal memos summarized below. The statements are reported here. In fact, the internal memos and documents listed below, do not contradict the ExxonMobil executives in any way. The internal documents and publications all clearly describe the considerable uncertainties in climate science and align with the executives’ statements. Go to the link to see all of them, two of the most notable are quoted below:
Mr. Ken Cohen, ExxonMobil Vice President for Public and Government Affairs, 2015 (Blog Post):
“What we have understood from the outset – and something which over-the-top activists fail to acknowledge — is that climate change is an enormously complicated subject.
“The climate and mankind’s connection to it are among the most complex topics scientists have ever studied, with a seemingly endless number of variables to consider over an incredibly long timespan.”
Duane Levine, Exxon’s manager of Science and Strategy Development, 1989 (Internal Document #21 below)
“In spite of the rush by some participants in the greenhouse debate to declare that the science has demonstrated the existence of [man-made global warming] today, I do not believe such is the case. Enhanced greenhouse is still deeply imbedded in scientific uncertainty, and we will require substantial additional investigation to determine the degree to which its effects might be experienced in the future.”
Even if there were a contradiction between the executives and the ExxonMobil climate researchers, who is to say which of them is wrong? Free speech is a fundamental individual right in the USA and executives are allowed to disagree with their employees. As University of Tennessee Law Professor Glenn Harlan Reynolds has said in USA Today:
Federal law makes it a felony “for two or more persons to agree together to injure, threaten, or intimidate a person in any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the Unites States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same).”
“I wonder if U.S. Virgin Islands Attorney General Claude Walker, or California Attorney General Kamala Harris, or New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman have read this federal statute. Because what they’re doing looks like a concerted scheme to restrict the First Amendment free speech rights of people they don’t agree with. They should look up 18 U.S.C. Sec. 241.”
ExxonMobil has filed court papers in Texas seeking to block a subpoena issued by the attorney general of the US Virgin Islands Claude Walker. They argue that the subpoena is an unwarranted fishing expedition into ExxonMobil’s internal records.
Environmentalist groups, like the Rockefeller Family Fund and 350.org are trying to organize a legal attack against ExxonMobil patterned on the attack many organizations led against the tobacco companies. They feel that their presumed imminent man-made climate disaster is being ignored and they want to make ExxonMobil a scapegoat. As Lee Wasserman (Rockefeller Family Fund) said recently “It’s not really about Exxon.”
Mr. Scheiderman may have made the “error of assuming facts that are not in evidence.” He assumes that man-made greenhouse gases are a significant factor in climate change and that the resulting enhanced climate change is dangerous. Neither assertion has been proven. He also assumes that Exxon’s early research proved these assertions to be true, with little or no doubt. Therefore, Mr. Scheiderman believes the Exxon executives’ claims that there is significant uncertainty around the idea of dangerous man-made climate change is a lie. I do not see any proof of dangerous climate change, man-made or otherwise in any of the documents below. In peer reviewed document #55 below, Flannery, et al. in 1985 suggest that the effect of CO2 on climate, based on geological data from the Cretaceous Period, is 50% or less. Internal document #3 indicates concern that there is a “potential problem amid all the scientific uncertainties.”
Along this line of thought, the ExxonMobil court filing against Mr. Walker and the US Virgin Islands says in part:
“… [ExxonMobil] has “widely and publicly confirmed” that it recognizes “that the risk of climate change and its potential impacts on society and ecosystems may prove to be significant.”
Brian Flannery states in published document #66 below in 2001:
“Although we know the human emissions fairly well, we don’t know the natural emissions well at all. Added to this uncertainty is the fact that natural emissions can change as a result of long-term climate changes.”
The key problem is that ExxonMobil management and most, if not all, of their researchers do not think the idea of dangerous man-made climate change has been proven. Further, one of them said in internal document #3 below: “we have time to evaluate the uncertainties even in a worse-case scenario.” This is still true, especially considering the very slow pace of warming over the last twenty years.
In internal document #3 below, they discuss the potential effect of doubling CO2 in the atmosphere and the discussion is instructive. The CO2 level prior to the industrial revolution (roughly 1840-1850) is unknown. They give two possibilities (260-270 ppm or 290-300 ppm). The temperature increase from 1850 to the end of 2015 is roughly 0.85°C from the HADCRUT 4 dataset and the 5th IPCC Assessment reports 0.85°C from 1880 to 2012. The Exxon researchers did not think a clear anthropogenic signal was detectable in 1979, because at that time the total temperature increase from 1850 had not exceeded 0.5°C, their assumed natural variability. So, they thought man-made warming might be clearly detected by the year 2000.
We are now well past the year 2000 and according to the data shown in their Table 6 (Internal Document #3), we are on track with their most benign scenario of a temperature increase of 1.3° to 1.7°C per doubling of CO2 (ECS). This assumes an initial concentration of CO2 of 265 to 295 ppm and a natural variability of +-0.5°C. The initial CO2 concentration assumption is reasonable, the assumption of 0.5°C for natural variability may be too low. However, if the assumptions are true, they probably eliminate the possibility of higher climate sensitivity to CO2 (ECS>2°). This is also supported by recent empirical estimates of ECS. There are considerable uncertainties in this approach, but they are important to recognize. We don’t know the CO2 level when we started emitting a lot of fossil fuel CO2, we don’t know the net effect on our climate, and can’t be certain we have seen any impact of man-made CO2 on our climate to date.
Even Brian Flannery, one of the Exxon researchers who has been deeply involved in the IPCC process stated in internal document 22, below: ““While uncertainty exists, science supports the basic idea that man’s actions pose a serious potential threat to climate.” This is the most alarmist statement I could find anywhere, but it still says “potential” and notes that uncertainty exists.
In peer-reviewed paper #25 below, Dr. Kheshgi and Dr. White state in 2001:
“Many previous claims that anthropogenically caused climate change has been detected have utilized models in which uncertainties in the values of some parameters have been neglected (Santer et al. 1996b). In section 5 we have incorporated known parameter uncertainties for an illustrative example by using the proposed methodology for distributed parameter hypothesis testing. The results clearly show that incorporation of parameter uncertainty can greatly affect the conclusions of a statistical study. In particular, inclusion of uncertainty in aerosols forcing would likely lead to rejection of the hypothesis of anthropogenically caused climate change for our illustrative model …”
They are concerned here and in other papers, that the GCM (global circulation climate models) have used fixed parameters for their calculations for variables that actually have a great deal of uncertainty. By fixing these variables across many models, the modelers produce a narrower range of outcomes giving a misleading appearance of consistency and accuracy that does not actually exist.
As Professor Judith Curry has often said there is an uncertainty monster at the science-policy interface. The ExxonMobil scientists are very good, they write well and their superiors in ExxonMobil understand what they are saying. Man-made climate change is a potential problem, but it is shrouded in uncertainty because it is an extremely complex research topic with countless variables. The internal and published documents below show that Exxon has worked hard to define the uncertainty and they have even succeeded in reducing the uncertainty in some areas, especially in the carbon cycle. But still, the remaining uncertainty is huge and it covers the range from zero anthropogenic effect to perhaps 4° or 5°C (see publication #7, Kheshgi and White 1993) to this day. Not much different than in 1977 when they got started.
I’ll conclude this post with a quote from internal document #11, the 1982 Exxon Consensus statement. I think it speaks well for ExxonMobil and puts Schneiderman (and many in the media) to shame:
“As we discussed in the August 24 meeting, there is the potential for our research to attract the attention of the popular news media because of the connection between Exxon’s major business and the role of fossil fuel combustion in contributing to the increase of atmospheric CO2. Despite the fact that our results are in accord with most major researchers in the field and are subject to the same uncertainties, it was recognized that it is possible for these results to be distorted or blown out of proportion.
Nevertheless the consensus position was that Exxon should continue to conduct scientific research in this area because of its potential importance in affecting future energy scenarios and to provide Exxon with the credentials required to speak with authority in this area. Furthermore our ethical responsibility is to permit the publication of our research in the scientific literature; indeed to do otherwise would be a breach of Exxon’s public position and ethical credo on honesty and integrity.”
This is the only thing I found in the internal memos that was not published. In 1982 they thought the media might distort their research results or blow them out of proportion (the Uncertainty Monster). Well, that certainly happened. For science to work properly, research outcomes cannot be dictated. All interested parties must be allowed to investigate the problem and publish their results. They must have access to data, computer programs and models that are publicly funded. But, above all, they should not be punished, jailed, intimidated or sued because they are skeptical of a popular scientific thesis. They should be judged only on the quality of their scientific work and not who they work for or who funds them.
This post is excerpted from a longer post The Exxon Climate Papers, that includes links and annotations to 89 documents, including internal documents and published papers.
Bio notes: Andy May worked for Exxon from 1980 to 1985. During part of that time he worked on the Natuna D-Alpha project discussed in some of these documents. He did not work at either the Florham Park, New Jersey Research laboratory or the Linden, New Jersey laboratory where the climate research was done. The views expressed in this essay and bibliography are his own. This was written in his spare time and he received no compensation from anyone for writing and posting it.
JC note: As with all guest posts, keep your comments civil and relevant.
Yet another witchhunt by the alarmist scoundrels. Shameful. It would be laughable if it weren’t so potentially damaging to a free society.
Is it acceptable for a company to deny the undesirable and costly side-effects of its products?
Why or why not?
David Appell,
Oh dear. What has that to do with the post?
That’s about as relevant as asking if it is acceptable for Warmists to claim they can raise the temperature of something by surrounding it with CO2!
And, of course, the answer would be a resounding “no”. However,I don’t call for prosecution of Warmists. I’m charitable, and assume foolishness, rather than intentional fraud.
I’m sure you’ll correct me if I’m wrong.
Cheers
Mike, I don’t know why you keep bringing up “raise the temperature of something by surrounding it with CO2!”
If you have never seen it done, you may like the linked video.
It behooves all companies to accept that with the benefits that its products produce there would also be social costs. It also behooves that Governments and their instrumentalities clearly show all costs as well as benefits that arise from the implementation of their policies. It also behooves that all citizens acknowledge that benefits that they receive from use of certain products will entail social costs. This idea needs to be put to environmentalists who use aircraft to attend their conferences or use a motor vehicle during the course of their daily lives.
DA “Is it acceptable….”
1. Legally, a company has no obligation to admit the undesirable effects of its products. If under a valid subpoena, if forced to testify, it has to tell the truth.
2. Many times, a subject is so complicated that there is no right answer. For instance, a car company could be asked whether it expects fuel supplies to be greater or diminished in the future. In these instances, the company is free to give a range of answers and it is acceptable to do so. Your question assumes that the side effects of Exxon’s products are clear, which is a false supposition and makes your question nonsensical.
3. I would ask you whether scientists or environmentalists are required to admit the positive effects of fossil fuels and oil on the economies of many nation and on the availability of advanced medical care. Also, the longevity of Chinese people has increased greatly with the Chinese nation’s vastly increased use of coal since 1950. So, is it acceptable for environmentalists, scientists and the IPCC to deny the positive effects of coal and other fossil fuels.
JD
max1ok,
Thanks for the link. I’ve seen several others which were similar.
I hate (well, not really) to burst the Warmist bubble, but a chap named John Tyndall did extensive experiments in the mid 1850s, showing that all gases could be heated, and all subsequently cooled when the heat source was removed. Without knowing anything about frequencies, EMR theory, or quantum theory, he showed that different gases had different absorptivities to different wavelengths of radiation, pressures and temperatures. Although this is now basic physics, it was revolutionary in Tyndall’s day.
However, you will notice in the absence of an additional high intensity external heat source, the addition of CO2 makes no difference to temperature. The bottles are still being heated by the environmental radiation in the room – you can’t just ignore the ambient heat because you don’t like it!
It is well known that different gases have different specific heats. This means they will heat at different rates, and the rather poorly set up,and controlled “experiment” would have any respectable experimenter gnashing his teeth and rending his garments in horror!
I repeat, if you can show that you can increase the temperature of something by surrounding it with CO2, you will that which has never been done before.
Demonstrating that you can heat CO2 with a heat source, and that gases have differing specific heats, using the setup in the video, is somewhat akin to reinventing the wheel, in the shape of a scalene triangle rather than a circle, and overlooking provision for an axle. Just for fun, use H2O gas (supposedly the most important GHG, at least according to NASA) rather than CO2. Prepare to be amazed!
Maybe the Warmist knowledge of physics is not as extensive or reliable as it should be.
Cheers.
Peter M. Davies, I agree with you, but the environmentalists I know do try. I haven’t found it difficult to be environmentally responsible. I like the money it saves for me.
Mike Flynn says
“I repeat, if you can show that you can increase the temperature of something by surrounding it with CO2, you will that which has never been done before.”
______
Oh I see, in your statement a source of heat isn’t a given. You would change the experiment by placing both bottles in a pitch-black room, held at a constant temperature, to show that the bottle containing the CO2 didn’t get warmer than the bottle containing just water, therefore demonstrating CO2 can’t generate heat by itself? If this is your point, I’m not sure for what reason.
If you think there’s a theory among climate scientists that CO2 is its own heat and we don’t need the sun, do you have links?
max1ok,
This is probably not the place for this, but you wrote –
“If you think there’s a theory among climate scientists that CO2 is its own heat and we don’t need the sun, do you have links?”
Where in the world did you get that idea? Your mind reading powers are obviously on holiday with the rest of your brain! How about you quote what I said, rather than what you wish me to have said!
You can’t even state what theory you suppose alleged climate scientists have as a basis for their odd opinions. It all seems to revolve about GHGs making things 33C hotter than they would otherwise be, which is obviously ridiculous. Just imagine, 1200 W/m2 from a 5500 C emitter, falling on a block of ice at the equator – and yet the ice doesn’t melt until around 11 am or later. The seas would all be 33 C colder – frozen right through.
Or is this just an average? The poles would get no colder, and maybe at the Equator temperatures would drop by 50 C. Brrrr.
So just what is the wonderful theory behind climate science? Does CO2 only work in bright sunlight? What about H2O, the most important GHG (according to NASA, anyway)?
Of course there isn’t a climate science theory that I’m aware of. The theory of – what? The magical powers of CO2?
Bring it into the light of day! Keep it hidden no longer! Break the sacred seals, and let the ineffably effulgent brilliance of the high priests of the Warmist Church of Latter a Day Scientism shine forth!
But alas, you can’t. You’ve put it in a safe place with Steven Mosher’s missing clue, and forgotten where it is. Oh dear! Keep looking!
Cheers.
David Appell asks:
The “undesirable and costly side-effects of its products”?
Your quesiton is based on a false premise.
Sorry, David, but we are not undergrad students who must suffer the subjective attitudes imposed upon them by some daft, but highly arrogant and dogmatic, philosophy or theology professor.
https://fasab.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/bush_wmd_cartoon-1.jpg
max1ok,
You wrote –
“Oh I see, in your statement a source of heat isn’t a given. You would change the experiment by placing both bottles in a pitch-black room, held at a constant temperature, to show that the bottle containing the CO2 didn’t get warmer than the bottle containing just water, therefore demonstrating CO2 can’t generate heat by itself? If this is your point, I’m not sure for what reason.”
The source of heat is, indeed, given. Unless at absolute zero, there is a source of heat. Warmists do not understand such things as basic physics, and frequently overlook basic physical concepts.
You seem to think there is something unique about CO2, or any other supposed GHG, as far as temperature rise of that which it surrounds. I say no, and as usual, you cannot provide a single fact to support your mad greenhouse effect hypothesis, theory, or however you choose to describe it.
Your supposed greenhouse effect is complete nonsense, of course. Any real (not realclimate) physicist, if reasonably civilised, will not actually laugh out loud if you demand he agree to your bizarre assertion. But he will derive his enjoyment nonetheless.
You may have put your proposition to some actual experimental physicists. I warrant that a grand total of zero are prepared to support you. You may be living in a state of denial. I do not know this for a fact. Provide the names and contact details of physicists who are willing to be personally associated with you, and I will contact them. I have found physicists, even with competing views, to be at least reasonably open to discussion. I believe they will agree with me.
But you’re only pretending to knowledge. You obviously have none that is supported by science. I feel your pain, but I have little sympathy. Do your best.
Cheers.
max10k, you have repeated the experiment that shows that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation better than a mixture of N2 and O2 (air) and whatever moisture is in the air. So what? That is not in dispute.
Is it acceptable for Greenpeace to deny the benefits of hydrocarbons? Could we not find someone rich enough to ask for a trawl through all the AG’s and associates files for the last 25 years to see how they have gone about suppressing the evidence of the benefits of hydrocarbons. Should we not conduct our own fishing expedition?
bigterguy | April 20, 2016 at 9:54 am |
max10k, you have repeated the experiment that shows that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation better than a mixture of N2 and O2 (air) and whatever moisture is in the air. So what? That is not in dispute.
_____
I thought Mike Flynn believed it was in dispute because he said:
“I repeat, if you can show that you can increase the temperature of something by surrounding it with CO2, you will that which has never been done before.”
Mike says he meant something different than my interpretation, but he didn’t clarify exactly what he meant. Mike does not communicate his thoughts well, which could be to his advantage.
And which company is that David?
Is it acceptable to falsely accuse someone? Is it acceptable to spread unfounded gossip? Because that is exactly what the people accusing Exxon Mobil are doing.
I think certain of these folks should take note of Professor Reynolds comments and his reference to 18 USC 241.
David Appell (@davidappell) | April 20, 2016 at 12:22 am | Reply
Is it acceptable for a company to deny the undesirable and costly side-effects of its products?
Why or why not?
Well, this assumes that there is a perfect alternative, and that your value system allows you to properly categorize cost and benefit.
There is cost/benefit to everything and decisions are a trade-off.
Global Warmers believe it is better to have hundreds of thousands of Chinese choke to death than have a little more pollution in the US.
Global warmers lie about the benefits of more CO2 so that they can make unbalanced claims and analyses. 60% more food from post 1900 CO2 and warmth is a benefit that outweighs any claimed harm to date.
http://www.c3headlines.com/global-warming-quotes-climate-change-quotes.html
“The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man.”
“Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs.”
On surveys the response of some “experts” is there is no benefit from more CO2. This claim is only true if you believe feeding the starving poor is harmful, which is the position of some global warmers.
Global Warmers, many of whom have very sick and disturbed value systems, should not be allowed to do cost/benefit analysis since their idea of a “cost” and a “benefit” is alien to a rational person with common sense.
“Is it acceptable for a company to deny the undesirable and costly side-effects of its products?”
As you already know this is a leading question. The answer is yes.
What did Mr. Walker state?
“that the risk of climate change and its potential impacts on society and ecosystems may prove to be significant.” The beauty of conditional statements is that they are truly meaningless.
Let’s reword this but it will say exactly the same thing.
“that the risk of climate change and its impacts on society and ecosystems may prove to be insignificant.” Significant becomes insignificant because it is equally valid.
Alarmists claim that 60 years ago, #ExxonKnew. That put them decades ahead of the the consensus. Perhaps they still are decades ahead of the consensus.
jddohio wrote:
“2. Many times, a subject is so complicated that there is no right answer.”
The fossil fuel companies have known for decades that a byproduct of their product warms that planet and changes its climate.
“3. I would ask you whether scientists or environmentalists are required to admit the positive effects of fossil fuels and oil on the economies of many nation and on the availability of advanced medical care.”
For one thing, advanced medical care depends on energy, not necessarily on fossil fuel energy.
I don’t see scientists opining on the benefits and costs of fossil fuels — I see them saying that fossil fuels are changing the climate, rapidly.
But economists do do such research. The one I’m familar with finds more costs to fossil fuels than benefits. That is, using fossil fuels to generate energy actually creates negative economic growth:
“Environmental Accounting for Pollution in the United States Economy,” Nicholas Z. Muller, Robert Mendelsohn, and William Nordhaus, American Economic Review, 101(5): 1649–75 (2011).
http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.101.5.1649
Summarizing that paper’s findings: for every $1 in value that comes from coal-generated electricity, it creates $2.20 in damages.
Total damages: $70 billion per year (in 2012 dollars).
Petroleum-generated electricity is even worse: $5.13 in damages for $1 in value.
“Is it acceptable for a company to deny the undesirable and costly side-effects of its products?”
Do you distinguish “acceptable” from “lawful”? I personally do not think it “acceptable” that people aim their flatulence in my general direction, alas what they do is lawful.
The question is not whether or not a company’s actions are “acceptable”, the proper question is; is it lawful?
Is it unlawful to deny your products are “undesirable”? Is it unlawful to point to the very real uncertainties involved in climate change attribution?
David says “Summarizing that paper’s findings: for every $1 in value that comes from coal-generated electricity, it creates $2.20 in damages.”
David also says “Petroleum-generated electricity is even worse: $5.13 in damages for $1 in value.”
The coal companies should stop producing coal for 1 year. The petroleum companies should stop producing petroleum for one year.
Think of the damage we would avoid.
Maybe we should ask the natural gas companies to stop producing natural gas for 1 year as well.
The synergy effects of stopping all three at the same time, should make us all rich in avoided damage.
I cannot imagine that anything bad would happen as a result of this.
After all, a scientist wrote a paper asserting that the damage outweighed the benefit – and I am sure they very carfully considered what a world without fossil fuels would be like.
I am sure it would be no problem.
Richard Arrett,
Good point and made absolutely clear. It is amazing to me how people can be so stupid, so dumb, so gullible, so ignorant as these alarmist – like David Appell. Have they never been taught to challenge their beliefs. have they never been taught how to do reality checks? It makes you wonder where they were educated.
Max10k: I like the simple experimental approach, but the one I saw demonstrated appears to me to be flawed. Since pV=nRT, stopping up the second bottle while the tablets are still fizzing should produce an increase in temperature that has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect. It’s also surprising that he did that, given that CO2 is heavier than air, and so was completely unnecessary–the CO2 would have stayed in the bottle without stoppering it.
Resp to David Appell at 9:23 p.m. by JD —
JD “Many times, a subject is so complicated that there is no right answer.”
DA “The fossil fuel companies have known for decades that a byproduct of their product warms that planet and changes its climate.”
JD Response: I would say that the corps have known that CO2 has a tendency to warm the climate. There may be other countervailing processes that could cause cooling over time, such as an increase in volcanic eruptions. The fact that such a tendency exists — without, up to this point in time, any evidence that modest warming is harmful does not impute any signficant responsibility on traditional fuel companies.
Your statement “a byproduct of their product warms that planet and changes its climate.” is meaningless because responsibility would only occur if the corps knew of substantial bad outcomes arising from their products.
******
JD “I would ask you whether scientists or environmentalists are required to admit the positive effects of fossil fuels and oil on the economies of many nation and on the availability of advanced medical care.”
DA Response ” I don’t see scientists opining on the benefits and costs of fossil fuels — I see them saying that fossil fuels are changing the climate, rapidly.”
JD to DA: Your answer avoids the premise of my question. If scientists are not required to disclose all of the effects of CO2, why should fossil fuel corps? The corps are not experts on climate science in the same way that scientists are not experts on the benefits of fossil fuels. (Although the “scientists” hypocritically frequently comment on the negative aspects of fossil fuels and economic policy to the extent they think it should reduce CO2)
*****
Finally, could you point me somewhere in the Nordhaus study you referenced where it gave credit to fuel corps for the lives saved by heat in the winter and air conditioning in the winter. If externalities are to be considered, both positive and negative externalities should be considered.
JD
David Appell
Is it acceptable for the US Administration to deny the undesirable and costly side-effects of its policies?
Why or why not?
Peter: You avoided the question.
Your question doesn’t warrant an answer. Mine does.
Peter: Until you address the original question, there’s no basis for a discussion here.
http://grist.org/climate-energy/no-obamas-clean-power-plan-wont-raise-your-electric-bills-no-matter-what-conservatives-say/
From JimD’s link, perhaps most people with any degree of reason can agree that the Clean Power Plan should serve to increase electric rates and decrease electric consumption. A corollary of these two effects are s that rates will climb more than bills and the converse bills won’t rise like rates.
It late s ridiculous to leap from this to say all conservative arguments that cost will go up are bogus based on some limited biased studies suggests these effects will cancel out (or serve to reduce bills). A bad faith article of the worst sort.
Or to imply that arguments of this sort originate or are necessarily tied to. “conservatives”.
Conservatives are usually wrong on the economy. They said Obamacare was a jobkiller and here we are with 10 million more jobs. Clinton left the economy in the black, and look what they did. Two unpaid for wars, tax giveaways to the rich, and they wanted it to be easy to buy homes and we got the recession. They blow up the deficit every time, and now the deficit has finally been reduced 75%. I would not listen to conservatives on the economy. The track record of the Democrats shows more responsibility on that front at least in the last 40 years.
I’m not suggesting you listen to “conservatives” on the economy or energy costs for that matter. But I would suggest that you don’t label anyone who says anything that appears inconvenient for “renewable” dreams as a conservative.
The link title (and headline) is “…clean power plant wont raise your electric bills no matter what conservatives say”. That seems to be at best premature and closed minded predicated on the flimsy evidence. I think the article seeks to peremptorily denigrate any argument cautioning about the cost impacts as “conservative” propaganda, because we already have the answer.
JimD – conservatives argued against Obamacare until they were blue in the face, and they were absolutely right to do so. From the article:
…
ObamaCare’s collapsing. UnitedHealth will abandon most ObamaCare markets, the insurer announced Tuesday. Giant insurers like Aetna and the BlueCross Blue Shield Association are next. They warned last week losses trying to sell ObamaCare plans are “unsustainable” — $3 billion a year, according to Standard and Poor’s — and they’ll either stop selling the plans or significantly raise premiums.
That’s a scary prospect. Even Hillary Clinton’s campaign admits the cost of ObamaCare plans is already “crushing.”
As for the GOP alternative, the devil will be in the details. But six years of ObamaCare have taught the nation lessons that Republicans should not ignore.
…
http://nypost.com/2016/04/19/getting-set-to-pick-up-the-pieces-of-obamacares-collapse/
jim2,
CBS reported on that on its evening news last night too:
Obamacare was already on the rocks, however, as it has proved entirely too expensive for many families:
Almost $800 per month for the average family of three for Obamacare?
How many families can fit that into their budget?
Obamacare was nothing but a huge payback to the Republicrats’ generous benefactors: the gazillionaire fat cats of Big Pharm and the healthcare industry.
But not to worry. Obama, with his legalisms (or nomisms), has an ironclad solution:
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/34/b7/a8/34b7a8b7875a4e1550ed003b8eda1adb.jpg
jim2,
But I do grasp the point you’re making: the “undesirable and costly side-effects” of Obamacare are very real, palpable and in the here and now; whereas the “undesirable and costly side-effects” of CAGW are speculative and for the most part in some imagined apocalyptic future.
Arithmetic is hard. A policy that provides severely limited coverage can be cheaper… if the three people remain healthy. But if just one has an illness, the out-of-pocket costs can easily leave that family far worse off than they would have been if they had been responsible and budgeted the extra C note, or so, a month a better Obamacare policy would have cost them.
A single payer system would be far cheaper. Single payer is pinko gawdless communism.
JCH said:
“The extra C note”?
Try five extra C notes, that on top of the three already budgeted.
So yes, “Arithmatic is hard,” as you affirm.
And then there’s the little thing about how the family would have been better off “if they had been responsible and budgeted the extra C note.”
You remind me of my significant other: “Those extra C notes just grow on trees.”
But more than that, your admonishment that “had they been responsible” is a manifestation of what Reinhold Niebuhr called the “middle-class creed”:
A couple with a child, making around $50,000 a year, would pay around $400 a month for a quality policy… depending upon state and tobacco, etc.
A better solution would be a government run hospital system. It’s a compromise of conservative principles, but would be the cheapest solution. It could be staffed with H1B workers paid at 25% of the going rate, kind of like the advantage farmers, construction firms, and tech companies enjoy now.
Most major counties already have a government-run hospital. Then you have the non-profits. They are largely staffed by slaves called resident physicians!
“A better solution would be a government run hospital system.”
We already have that – the VA. You might like it. Intelligent people, not so much.
The problem is the existing did not meet the needs of those with preexisting conditions. So it makes sense that those in most of need of coverage would sign up. The other problem was that we started out with was having 45 million with no coverage. Neither of these problems are the fault of Obamacare. And in fact Obamacare has improved the situation because of providing coverage for some in this population, but not enough. Ultimately, we need a solution that covers everyone who needs health care.
From David Appell “You avoided the question”
First off it was an extremely poor question. So broadly posed as to be meaningless. Secondly, jddohio answered it anyway. Thirdly, you, as usual, insist on answers yet fail to respond to others questions.
Jim D | April 20, 2016 at 1:42 am |
Conservatives are usually wrong on the economy. They said Obamacare was a jobkiller and here we are with 10 million more jobs.
This statement is untrue. Obamacare was a job killer and the economy has failed to provide sufficient employment. 10 million was much fewer jobs than needed.
https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png
In the last lame duck year of the current president the situation is improving slightly since there is “Hope” that an new more sensible president will bring positive “Change” to the economy.
PA | April 20, 2016 at 4:31 pm |
This statement is untrue.
The missing graph for previous post
https://i.imgur.com/Vj3mQjM.png
What is truly worrisome is that this is an attack on science and the scientific method. The Democrats are turning the clock back 400 years putting belief above truth.
The swirl surrounding Exxon’s climate research activity is stupefying. Please search for Exxon/Sanford/GCEP. Read the entire history, results and span. Then I would like to invite the gathered attorneys general to shut up and resign if they have an ounce of dignity. I know they don’t.
Interesting, thanks. FYI, the name in the bio (Andy May) doesn’t match the signatory (Andy West)
Pingback: The Exxon Climate Papers – Enjeux énergies et environnement
What a relief that lawyers have shown the way by renouncing fossil fuel use! Chasing ambulances on bamboo bicycles has not been easy for them.
And all those sea kayaks crossing the Atlantic to COP21 did great credit to the 97%. We knew they were serious then.
The problem is pretty obvious. Climate activists are abusing the legal process.
The solution is simple – raise the standard of proof for these sorts of suits and allow counter suits with actual and punitive damages if the standard isn’t met.
I don’t quite understand.
Is it the case that someone can be, say, imprisoned and fined, for supposedly lying or misleading about something which hasn’t actually happened yet?
In that case, say someone who claimed that anthropogenic effects on climate were unquantifiable was penalised, on the basis of lying or misleading. If it turned out that their assumption was correct, would this mean that the prosecutor was making misleading statements by accusing the putative liar?
Now, it’s all well and good to throw the prosecutor, and all his accomplices in prison, and fine them heavily, for lying or misleading (as it turned out), but how do you un-penalise the wrongly convicted person?
Did Michael Mann mislead about being a Nobel Laureate, possibly accruing additional a Government funding to his employer? Should he prosecuted retrospectively, perhaps?
All Warmists should promptly be prosecuted for claiming anthropogenic climate impacts will be more harmful than otherwise. Billions of dollars will have been diverted from activities which would have saved lives. And so on.
After all, how can a prosecutor (or even the most dedicated Warmist) see into the future any more clearly than myself, for example?
Or is this a case of “Only in America”?
Cheers.
Why couldn’t Exxon/Mobile have been honest and upfront and say, yes, by-products of the product we sell are hamful to health and the environment in these ways (X, Y, Z), but at the same time, our product gives great benefits to socity.
David Appell,
The benefits to society are very concrete and in the here and now, whereas the harms are speculative and mostly in some imagined apocalyptic future.
Your unbound speculations are far more appropriate to theology than they are to science.
How do you know Exxon Mobil has not been honest? Where is your evidence? This is nothing more than spreading rumors and malicious gossip. Does you faith based conviction in the dangers of warming mean so much to you that you think it justifies behavior normally attributable to a low life scumbag?
How about this David, next time you or someone you care about needs immediate medical attention, walk to the hospital. That way you avoid using a product which is harmful to the health of others.
Mike: Are you aware that Fred Singer made the same claim about a Nobel Prize?
“John Christy, my fellow skeptic and fellow co-recipient of this year’s Nobel Peace Prize (by virtue of having our names listed in IPCC reports) in the WSJ [ITEM #4]”
http://www.sepp.org/twtwfiles/2007/November%203.htm
David Appell,
Yes.
What does that have to do with my question about Michael Mann? Is Mann’s defence “He did it too”?
Or do you want Fred Singer prosecuted too? I wouldn’t raise any objection if he used his alleged Nobel Laureate on, say, a CV which accompanied a grant application, or which appeared on his employer’s website, implying status which was undeserved.
Let’s start with Michael Mann. I believe he has claimed Nobel Laureate status in an ongoing court case. I’m not sure about Fred Singer.
What do you think?
Cheers.
This has always been a bullsh*t issue — another aside taken up only out of frustration that the science of AGW can’t be disproven. So it must be dismissed in any other way possible.
Mann and Singer made their claims at a time right after the announcement when no one really knew what it meant for a scientific organization to win a Nobel Prize.
Both took pride in their work for the IPCC — for shame! How dare they feel honored to have contributed to the IPCC’s accomplishment and how dare they think they deserved some of the accolades that came its way! What scum, right, daring to feel a little pride.
Fortunately Mann has only become more prominent over the years — gaining an academic position of distinction and attention, his work since replicated by many other research groups, his opinions sought by journalists all over the world on a daily basis.
I can see how you would find that frustrating.
DA “Mike: Are you aware that Fred Singer made the same claim about a Nobel Prize?”
Singer wasn’t dumb enough to make the claim in a libel suit as did Mann in his suit against Steyn. I think we can agree it is very dumb in both cases. That being the case, why is someone as dumb as Mann receiving substantial research money from the government.
JD
David Appell,
From the IPCC website –
“It does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters.” The finest Warmist science.
The Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to the Panel in 2007. The year before, it was awarded to the Grameen Bank, and the year before that, to the International Atomic Energy Agency. So much for never having been awarded to an organisation.
As to Mann’s so called research, I accept that Mann’s paper accepting the early 2000s pause is heading in the right direction. Gavin Schmidt’s comments on the matter – “”A little bit of turf-protecting and self-promotion I think is the most parsimonious explanation,” Schmidt says. “Not that there’s anything wrong with that.””
Oh goody! Gavin says there’s nothing wrong with turf-protecting and self promotion. Is he claiming expertise in the subject, or just bumping his gums?
As to journalists seeking Michael “I talk to dead trees, and they answer!” Mann’s opinion several times a day, can you not think for yourself, or are you just too lazy to do so?
The world wonders!
Cheers.
Mr. Appell,
You are being thoroughly dishonest about Fred Singer. It is quite clear that when Singer makes the claim of being a Nobel prize winner, he is being tongue-in-cheek. His article in the WSJ back in 2007 begins: “I’ve had a lot of fun recently with my tiny (and unofficial) slice of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize awarded to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But, though I was one of thousands of IPCC participants, I don’t think I will add “0.0001 Nobel Laureate” to my resume…”
Kinda says the exact opposite of what you stated, no?
I trust you will do the right thing – apologize and stop making this scurrilous claim.
Mike Flynn wrote:
“I believe the products in question are generally hydrocarbons. Most people realise that like electricity, harm may occur if incorrectly used.”
That’s exactly wrong — harm occurs if hydrocarbons are “correctly” used.
There is no way to avoid CO2 emissions when burning hydrocarbons. People of the future will see us as ignorant greedy lunatics for using fuels that so readily alter the climate, just like we look back on doctors who bled their patients or slaveholders owning other human beings for their economic benefits.
“Mann and Singer made their claims at a time right after the announcement when no one really knew what it meant for a scientific organization to win a Nobel Prize.”
Mann continued making the claim after any confusion was cleared up, and is evidenced in his law suit of Mark Steyn.
Further, the Nobel Committee have awarded Nobel Peace Prizes to individual organizations twenty-six times. So, in 1904 it would have been incorrect for any member of Institut de droit international to claim to have been a “recipient” of the 1904 Nobel Peace Prize.
It would have been incorrect for any Quaker in 1948 to claim they were a recipient of the 1947 Nobel Peace Prize just because American Friends Service Committee was awarded the prize.
Perhaps I am too exacting in my expectations of “scientists” but I do expect that if one were confused about who was actually a “recipient” of the Nobel Peace Prize that they would clear the confusion and know whether they were being truthful or not when making the claim to be a “recipient”.
David Appell,
You wrote-
“The planet is right now experiencing the warmest temperatures in recorded history. ”
Well, according to the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, and the World Meteorological Organisation, the recorded history of reasonably reliable temperature observations began after 1910.
Now, as experts in metrology, rather than climatological fantasy, have pointed out, the temperatures recorded may or may not contain large systematic errors, neither random nor predictable, which cannot be averaged out.
The recorded temperatures may or may not be a proxy for the Earth’s energy content in any case. Even if they were, your statement provides no useful information. You can’t peer into the future. For any given individual, the weather, and hence the climate, may be perceived as better in the future. Or, it may be perceived as worse.
You can’t even define one climate as being better or worse than another in absolute terms, but you are convinced that the future will be worse, due to a non-existent, physically impossible greenhouse effect.
You cannot even specify an optimal level of CO2. All mouth and no trousers, like the rest of the ridiculous, ragtag Warmist conga line.
Cheers.
jddohio wrote:
“Singer wasn’t dumb enough to make the claim in a libel suit as did Mann in his suit against Steyn.”
Only because no one thinks Singer’s work is worth suing over.
David Appell,
I believe this about an unknown future. An opinion on a potential problem?
I believe the products in question are generally hydrocarbons. Most people realise that like electricity, harm may occur if incorrectly used. Maybe not in the US. Do your power outlets carry any warnings about the death dealing product they dispense?
A couple of other points.
I believe the company’s name is something like ExxonMobil, rather than Exxon/Mobile. That’s how the company refers to itself on its website, anyway.
I believe you meant their products might be harmful to health, rather than hamful to health.
I believe you may have meant society, rather than socity.
Maybe you could seek advice from a qualified journalist, as you seem to be a bit lackadaisical with your facts and spelling. Steven Mosher has a Bachelor of Arts degree in English Literature. Maybe he could help?
Oh well.
Cheers.
Thanks. Good post. Pretty I innocuous stuff. Seems like it would be hard to convict unless the judges felt that had superpowers of intuition, discernment and the ability to read minds.
The Martin Act of New York is the source of AG Schneiderman’s powers in ths case. It worked against bankrupt coal companies but may be less successful against a healthy corporation with little interest in settlements.
One correction for the author:
Actually, the want to make ExxonMobil a piggy bank.
https://www.dechert.com/files/Publication/a4def5dd-77bf-48ae-bead-491bfcb9142c/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/dbeb2852-2e00-49d6-971f-4c2db9674658/FS_2004-04.pdf
opluso,
Great paper. Thanks for the heads up.
This from the paper:
The elimination of mens rea is one of the requirements necessary to transform the United States into a full-fledged police state, as those on both extremes of the political spectrum are want to do.
Lamentably, the United States is already well along the pathway in this creeping transmogrification. As Pat Nolan says:
Stephen F. Smith notes that there is great concern in some quaters about the creeping overcriminalization taking place in the United States:
And overcriminalizaton is a two-edged sword, victimizing those at the bottom of the socioeconomic order just as much, or maybe even more, than those at the top:
And you are right, what the strongman wannabes of both political extremes want to do is “to make ExxonMobil,” as well as a lot of other folks, a “piggy bank”. As the New Yorker article goes on to explain:
Exxon has been accused of knowing more about climate than the rest of the climate science fraternity, and of knowing it earlier. That accusation now appears to be correct – but not in the way intended. Clearly Exxon have understood right from the start the inherent uncertainties. I wish Exxon well in the upcoming case.
Judith the bio states Andy May whereas it should be Andy West.
This is a good post and the references are most interesting as a source of unbiased information on climate change issues. The company indeed has nothing to worry about but the political witch-hunt will end up with many egged faces and scorched backsides and massive losses in credibility.
Sorry. It seems that the author of the post was Andy May. Not Andy West. I have just had another look at the original post from which the head post was excerpted.
We live in seemingly dangerous times. But I am personally convinced that the ending will once again confirm that “Truth is victorious, never untruth!”
> Andy May worked for Exxon from 1980 to 1985.
The post is signed “by Andy West.”
Crickets.
It’s been fixed. Anybody who followed the link to the original article could see it was a simple typing error.
Having hunted squirrels into extinction, Willard has switched to crickets.
> It’s been fixed.
And I acknowledged it below.
yes, moso, showing what they’re made… oops,
not metal, but maybe clay, like the feet of Jagdish
Shukla et Al.
The Jagdish affair is an awkward case, requiring its own RICO, perhaps. You get that with crime families.
But these little hiccups should not daunt the indignation industry. It’s so pleasing to see all those BDS activists prying the Intel components from their electronics to make them judenrein (when they could just have an Aryan Hour every year to make their statement.)
But the most inspiring example of activism is coming from our green basket-case state of South Australia. I’m told the Crow Eaters will be sitting in the dark and shivering this winter rather than buying in Victorian coal power or running hyper expensive diesel and gas units. (Of course, checking those wind turbines for Israeli components could get tricky for those who are BDS as well as green.)
By the way, internal documents from breweries have shown that Big Beer has been aware for centuries that drinking gets you drunk. There’s got to be a mega-class action and Russell Crowe movie in that!
mosomoso, in the U.S beer comes with a warning on the bottle or can. I presume Australian beer like Fosters or Forsters or whatever it’s called has a warning label on the container for the U.S. market. The warning label should say POOR VALUE.
Citizen, we drink neither Fosters nor Forsters. We send the Fosters o/s for you Yanks to drink, a sort of friendly fire within chemical warfare. Ideally, we’d like ISIS to buy the ghastly muck, but they don’t imbibe (unless they’re eating an enemy’s liver).
You’ll be pleased to know we do have many disclaimers and warnings on our booze. So far the alcohol industry hasn’t had to come up with gruesome medical photos like those on cigarettes, but I’m sure there are experts having discussions right now on this very subject. Over a glass of red wine, of course.
My understanding is that before a court can be involved, there has to be shown harm; i.e., that the plaintive has been harmed.
Is there evidence that the plaintive has been harmed? This question needs to be vetted.
Please pass the popcorn.
“My understanding is that before a court can be involved, there has to be shown harm; i.e., that the plaintive has been harmed.”
Schneiderman in New York has a wide breadth of authority due to that states Martin Act which relieves him of any obligation to a showing of scienter. The other AG’s do not enjoy such protection.
The Martin Act is a fearsome beast, indeed. No need for the prosecutor to show intent, material reliance or even damages. There is, however, a six year statute of limitations in New York.
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/Reporter/3dseries/2014/2014_51912.htm
Reblogged this on Utopia – you are standing in it!.
If you take what has happened to Mark Steyn and Tim Ball (in Canada) the courts will not provide any resolution because the warmist will tie things up in court for years and win by simply having the biggest legal pot and stringing it out the longest. Steyn has waited over a year for a simple procedural step before his case can proceed! I wonder who in DC is putting off making a decision? No courts don’t work for little people. Exxon has enough money and enough good lawyers. We shall see what happens.
tumbleweed: Here’s what happened to Tim Ball — the newspaper he published in dropped him like a hot potato.
After the Calgary Herald published an op-ed by Ball on April 19, 2006, whom the newspaper identified as the first climatology PhD in Canada and a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg for 28 years, they published a letter on April 23, 2006 from Dr. Dan Johnson, a professor at the University of Lethbridge, who pointed out that neither of those descriptions is true; that Dr. Ball’s credentials were being seriously overstated. Ball later threatened Johnson and the Herald and ultimately sued for defamation.
In their Statement of Defense filed in Court, the Calgary Herald submitted the following:
1. “…that the Plaintiff (Ball) never held a reputation in the scientific community as a noted climatologist and authority on global warming.
2. “The Plaintiff has never published any research in any peer-reviewed scientific journal which addressed the topic of human contributions to greenhouse gas emissions and global warming
3. “The Plaintiff has published no papers on climatology in academically recognized peer-reviewed scientific journals since his retirement as a Professor in 1996;
4. “The Plaintiff’s credentials and credibility as an expert on the issue of global warming have been repeatedly disparaged in the media; and
5. “The Plaintiff is viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist.”
Ball dropped his lawsuit.
Source: The Calgary Herald, Statement of Defense – paragraph 50, Dr Tim Ball v The Calgary Herald, In the Court of the Queen’s Bench of Alberta Judicial District of Calgary, Dec 7, 2006 (http://is.gd/brO4uO).
More at:
http://www.desmogblog.com/tim-ball-vs-dan-johnson-update-0
http://www.desmogblog.com/tim-ball-vs-dan-johnson-lawsuit-documents
http://www.desmogblog.com/ball-bails-on-johnson-lawsuit
That was not the one I was referring to. I was referring to Mann vs Ball which is still going on in the courts in British Columbia.
Actually what you have presented is very typical of the entire “Silence the skeptics” movement. There is not one single item in your list that in any way addresses the actual content of any of Dr. Ball’s criticisms re the data. He published an op ed that was critical of the data analysis and rather than answer any of his criticisms, a smear campaign was launched against him. His criticisms were never answered. The newspaper dropped him, and his op feds, precisely because of the legal actions. The Mann vs Ball case is entirely different legal action which is currently stalled in the British Columbia supreme court level where it has been since 2013.
They say you are known from the company you keep David.
Keeping company with the likes of desmogblog is not a good idea. Unless you believe integrity is an outdated notion and deleting all comments that fail to follow the party line is completely acceptable.
You don’t do that at your site. Why would you condone it at theirs?
tumbleweed: Tim Ball is no more a climate expert vs Mann that he was vs. Dan Johnson.
Ball backed down in the face of court documents saying he had no expertise in climate science. Documents FROM HIS OWN PUBLISHER.
timg56 wrote:
“They say you are known from the company you keep David.
Keeping company with the likes of desmogblog is not a good idea.”
Bullcrap. I don’t “keep company” with Desmogblog — I cited their documents.
Let’s see you disprove those court documents. I doubt you can.
tumbleweedstumbling wrote:
“Actually what you have presented is very typical of the entire “Silence the skeptics” movement. There is not one single item in your list that in any way addresses the actual content of any of Dr. Ball’s criticisms re the data. He published an op ed that was critical of the data analysis and rather than answer any of his criticisms, a smear campaign was launched against him.”
Wrong wrong wrong. Ball’s OWN PUBLISHER denied his climate exertise. They didn’t make Ball withdraw his lawsuit — Ball did that all on his own accord.
Why? Because he knew he would lose.
Certainly worth looking at the Inside Climate News summary here too.
http://insideclimatenews.org/content/Exxon-The-Road-Not-Taken
This has a series of articles with telling headlines that give some idea of the conflicts they had between their ambitions and what the science was telling them. The turn from what is now and was then consensus science to something more dubious occurred during the 1980’s. Before that their science was very like the scientific consensus that we still have. They made the shift away, and the question is why. It wasn’t from evidence because they were starting to shut down their scientific program as they made the turn.
Thanks for the link JimD. While the bias is obvious here, the references are non-the-less of considerable interest.
There are always moochers who confiscate wealth from the producers. They do so by twisting the legal system to suit their purpose. But their work is made much easier when they have the support of an army of useful idiots who support them.
Unfortunately Exxon’s own scientists weren’t telling them what they wanted to hear, so they let them go, and shut down their program.
Targeting of legal citizen groups, spying 24/7 on citizens, prosecution for valid scientific positions, elites hiding money and transactions while the IRS watches the common man’s bank account like a hawk, over 50% of income paid to governments at all levels … the government at all levels is out of control.
Giles Corey was pressed to death for refusing to enter a guilty plea
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/93/29/b5/9329b550111bfafd301631d7ba14d6d1.jpg
http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/95/95/b3/9595b3feb8553478c80dfcd9008f714b.jpg
That’s not bad at all!
Cheers.
Slightly OT. Steve McIntyre looks at some of the tricks used by NASA Giss’s Gavin Schmidt. Judith gets a mention as well.
https://climateaudit.org/2016/04/19/gavin-schmidt-and-reference-period-trickery/
https://www.google.com.mx/search?q=quotes+salem+witch+trials&espv=2&biw=1366&bih=667&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjRyrOmlpzMAhVEl4MKHVMwBt0QsAQIGQ#imgdii=i7YPIvE8iXT93M%3A%3Bi7YPIvE8iXT93M%3A%3BBG7jYEQaoGQCcM%3A&imgrc=i7YPIvE8iXT93M%3A
http://cdn.quotesgram.com/small/5/29/1338346036-Crucible-Background-1xnv1sw_273882_lg.jpg
http://ci.memecdn.com/907/9424907.jpg
http://school.discoveryeducation.com/schooladventures/images/salemwitchtrials/people/putnamquote.gif
What about the UAH V6 temp record?
Ken Stewart’s latest UAH March update still shows a pause in all the regions except the Nth extra tropics.
Here are the Globe and regions.
Globe a pause for 18 yrs 10 months, over half the record.
NH a pause for 18 yrs 4 months.
SH a pause for 20 years 9mths, over half the record.
Tropics a pause for 21 yrs 6 mths , well over half the record.
Trop oceans a pause for 22 yrs 4 mths ‘ as above.
Nth ex tropics no pause, but trend of just 0.13 C per century, so no Stat significant warming at all.
Sth ex tropics a pause for 20 yrs 7 mths. Over half record.
Nth polar a pause for 14 yrs 1 month.
S polar a pause or slight cooling since Dec 1978.
USA a pause for 18 yrs 10 months.
OZ a pause for 21 yrs 1 mth , over half the record.
Of course there is a longer lag time with Sat temps, so the pause could disappear in the coming months. But if a la nina returns later this year the pause may come back after that date.
So far not much to show in all the globe’s regions since 1997. More food for thought?
https://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2016/04/08/the-pause-update-march-2016-complete/
Cherry-picking. (It always was.)
If over half the records are being used I fail to see how it can be described as cherry picking.
The definition of “cherry picking” employed here is choosing your time interval to give the results you want, whether that time interval is climatologically meaningful or not.
Adjusting the starting point of the time interval, as ngard did, is pure cherry picking. Nor does he explain why X years Y months says anything meaningful about climate, or is it about natural variability?
Let me re-phrase my question. If all the record is being used and over half of them show no obvious trend then I fail to see how it can be described as cherry picking? The start and finish dates comprise the whole record.
The Cherries can be picked because they are ripe. Right now, the alarmists are out of Cherries.
The world is now at a record high temperature. The long-term trends, 30+ years that are indicative of climate change, are all at 0.15-0.2 C/decade, and have been since about 1990.
==> if they found any definitive evidence of an impending man-made climate catastrophe…
Oy. The ol’ CAGWthescienceissettled strawman monster strikes again.
The issue is whether Exxon reported all risks to its shareholders and those who would buy its stocks and bonds, not whether they lied or exaggerated to the public.
This shifts the burden because a risk is a possibility not a certainty. The uncertainty monster will take a huge bite out of their defense.
Yes, some shareholders may not have bought ExxonMobile stock or bonds had the company been truthful. I don’t know whether the company intentionally misled investors, nor do I have an opinion on how the case is going to end up. If ExxonMobile sees a good chance of losing, it may be better to seek an out of court settlement if possible, and promise to help combat climate change.
I see the skeptics here have done an about-face on transparency. That’s pretty funny.
max10k: I see the skeptics here have done an about-face on transparency. That’s pretty funny.
Yes, yes, yes! The government should be transparent, but people and non-governmental organizations have privacy rights. The government can not search without a warrant, and the warrant must specify what is being searched for and how it might be evidence in a crime.
matthew, the law is the law, and the law says transparency can be compelled. One way is FOIA request, another way is subpoena. If you truly favor transparency you can’t be for one way but not the other.
What is funny, in a sad, sad sorry sort of way max is your inability to understand the difference between government and private persons and companies.
If you think transparency applies equally to all parties max, how about posting all of your financial accounts and tax filings for the past 7 years. Not doing so makes you a hypocrite.
max10k: If you truly favor transparency you can’t be for one way but not the other.
I truly favor transparency for the government and privacy for individuals. That’s in line with the 9th, 10th, and 14th amendments to the Constitution. It’s the citizens who have the rights, including privacy, not the government.
matthewmarler says “I truly favor transparency for the government and privacy for individuals.”
_____
The law says transparency can be compelled. One way is FOIA request, another way is subpoena. Matthew, are you against the law? Not that it would make any difference.
BTW, do you think ExxonMobile and CEI should have the same privacy rights as individuals?
timg56 said on April 20, 2016 at 4:12 pm
“What is funny, in a sad, sad sorry sort of way max is your inability to understand the difference between government and private persons and companies.”
______
As Mosher would say, are you illiterate?
What about my following statement makes you think I “don’t understand the difference between government and private persons and companies.”
The law is the law, and the law says transparency can be compelled. One way is FOIA request, another way is subpoena. If you truly favor transparency you can’t be for one way but not the other.
Do you believe ExxonMobile and CEI are above the law and should not be subject to subpoenas?
Subpoenas aside, do you believe ExxonMobile stockholders have no business knowing the Corporation’s business?
max10k: BTW, do you think ExxonMobile and CEI should have the same privacy rights as individuals?
Yes. It’s a restriction on government power and support of individual rights. Here we are talking about the obligation of the government to show probable cause when seeking a search warrant; and the search warrant should specify exactly what it is that the govt has the right to look for. Citizens do not lose their rights when they form corporations. Ever since the Sedition Act, we have seen that the government will abuse its power by enforcing laws arbitrarily against its political opponents.
There might in the abstract be some rights that citizens have that ExxonMobil and CEI should not have (contrary to what I wrote above), but all the rights at issue in this case the corporations should have.
max10k: Do you believe ExxonMobile and CEI are above the law and should not be subject to subpoenas?
Subject to probable cause.
Subpoenas aside, do you believe ExxonMobile stockholders have no business knowing the Corporation’s business?
Absent evidence of a crime, the state and fed governments should stay out of the way.
Let’s see,
“As Mosher would say, are you illiterate?”
I don’t believe I’ve ever seen Mosher say that. “Read harder” is not the same as calling someone illiterate.
“The law is the law, and the law says transparency can be compelled. One way is FOIA request, another way is subpoena. If you truly favor transparency you can’t be for one way but not the other.”
Ok, reference which laws say that. BTW, I believe FOIA only applies to government institutions.
“Do you believe ExxonMobile and CEI are above the law and should not be subject to subpoenas? ”
Have I ever stated anything like that? Instead of asking rhetorical questions to divert attention away from the fact you don’t have a clue, why don’t you tell us what crime either organization is guilty of committing? What is the probable cause which justifies the subpoenas?
“Subpoenas aside, do you believe ExxonMobile stockholders have no business knowing the Corporation’s business?”
Are you aware of any evidence showing Exxon Mobil failed to provide to it’s shareholders any information it was required to under the law?
The biggest threat to Exxon is the alarmist war against fossil fuels.
Everyone knows about that. Climate is well in bounds.
“Climate is well in bounds.”
Wrong. The planet is now warming at about 30 times the average rate it did when it left the last glacial period 25,000 yrs ago.
“The biggest threat to Exxon is the alarmist war against fossil fuels.”
Question- Can you show how it has impacted either Exxon’s earnings or stock price?
ExxonMobil often buys back its own shares in massive amounts. Stock price?
The Martin Act concerns misrepresentations and/or omissions of material facts related to the sale or issuance of securities in New York.
Schneiderman has previously indicated that “boilerplate” statements warning of potential future problems (e.g., statutory and regulatory changes) for stock performance are not sufficient to satisfy the Martin Act when it comes to climate change.
This is the sort of question that can spend many years in the courts.
“This shifts the burden because a risk is a possibility not a certainty. The uncertainty monster will take a huge bite out of their defense.”
Defence of what, exactly?
Did they not fund their own research?
Did not that research reflect the then current mainstream?
Did they not publish this research in an appropriate journal?
Did they not review this research internally?
Did not that internal review note that the uncertainties were high?
Did not their public position match their own published research, taking account of that researches stated uncertainties?
What was it that they did, exactly, that piques your moral outrage so intensely? Surely you do not object to them making money providing products that demonstrably improve peoples standard of living?
It’s true that they didn’t personally email everyone that might possibly be affected by global climate, but since that list is everyone on the planet, expecting them to do so is unreasonable. It’s also true that they raised little concern about something that their own research concluded couldn’t be measured yet, but given that any other response is easy to consider irresponsible, what would have them do?
They have to reveal any problems in their filings, including problems that have associated uncertainties. They are (potentially) toast.
From ExxonMobil’s 2010 10-K:
Eli Rabett said:
That’s certainly true if the prosecutors can find 12 jurors who think like you do.
But hopefully, facts, common sense and sound logic haven’t been completely stamped out of the national character.
Opluso, I believe the investigation is focusing on Exxon’s activities in an earlier period. I think their public position has changed in recent times.
Joseph:
Yes, and I haven’t dug into it to see whether the statute of limitations I cited above would be successful in this instance. I would suspect the AG has already considered that obstacle and has a response to Exxon’s obvious defense.
Opluso, I thought that was an interesting question, so just researched it. Answer was given in NY Law Journal in 2013, republished by NY law firm Jenner and Block, available on line with sufficiently precise legal search terms. (OK, that was a bad joke. Just google ‘Martin Act Statute of Limitations’.) By NY CPLR 214(2), for a Martin Act violation not requiring scienter, reliance, and damages (that is, ‘fraud’ defined by Martin Act only, not by common law or SEC [which requires all three elements also]) the New York statue of limitations is 3 years, not 6. This is quite well settled New York law.
NY AG’s theory is likely there is an old ‘climate denier smoking gun’ that was not revealed in the past 3 years. That is a loser, since Exxon provably climbed on the AGW bandwagon by advocating carbon taxes a decade ago to help its natural gas business versus coal. And since you already pointed out their 2010 filing was quite clear about global risks to the business from CAGW mitigation actions outside the US.
Poor Oreskes, INC, CIEL et. al. “big tobacco” hopes will be dashed. This feels more and more like a failed end game play. Will blow up in their faces. This is going to be fun for skeptics to watch play out.
“They have to reveal any problems in their filings, including problems that have associated uncertainties. They are (potentially) toast.”
As per opluso, they did disclose as required by law.
Once again, I ask you: what would you have them do differently and have you considered the consequences to their business of doing those things – responsible directors need to know these things and act appropriately considering ALL their duties and responsibilities and they do not have the benefit of hindsight as you now do.
Eli Rabett said:
If Exxon, or any publicly held company, is required to report everything bad it knows might possibly happen at some future date which might possibly have a negative impact on the company’s value, the list would be quite long, probably running into the thousands of pages.
Nevertheless, your comment does open up a window upon the “thinking” of the thought police of the climatariat.
The search for sin knows no limits.
https://s3.amazonaws.com/lowres.cartoonstock.com/religion-original_sin-serpents-snakes-adam-garden_of_eden-mcan1271_low.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-plYozgmTtFs/Via58Af9pdI/AAAAAAAAB2c/lZxv11B4-Co/s1600/10-18-Cx-EditToon-Exxon-Knew.jpg
All annual reposrts these days contain disclaimers on foreward-looking statements. eg TenneT
Let’s apply the New York Attorney General’s standards for exposing misleading statements to what the federal government and politicians have told us through the years – it should be easy to show that they lied to us repeatedly and that we, the taxpayers and citizens, were harmed.
ExxonMobile’s position on climate change, quoted below from its web site, shows that regardless of the corporation’s past, it now favors action. Given current investigations, ExxonMobile is wise to distance itself from deniers/skeptics and organizations that express their views.
_____
“Our position on climate change
We have the same concerns as people everywhere – and that is how to provide the world with the energy it needs while reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
The risk of climate change is clear and the risk warrants action. Increasing carbon emissions in the atmosphere are having a warming effect. There is a broad scientific and policy consensus that action must be taken to further quantify and assess the risks.
ExxonMobil is taking action by reducing greenhouse gas emissions in its operations, helping consumers reduce their emissions, supporting research that leads to technology breakthroughs and participating in constructive dialogue on policy options.
Addressing climate change, providing economic opportunity and lifting billions out of poverty are complex and interrelated issues requiring complex solutions. There is a consensus that comprehensive strategies are needed to respond to these risks.”
And then what? A law banning the sale and use of fossil fuels?
naw, Retributions, of course.
Fire up the torches!
Sharpen the pitchforks!
Down with ol’ King Coal!
Cheers.
No, worse, a lower stock price.
probabhblah,
You really couldn’t make this stuff up. No reality and no common sense can penetrate the minds of the climatariat when it comes to the Shangri la they believe they can create at some future date:
http://www.epaw.org/images/Greening_the_land.png
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/turbine_county_fracking_county_scr.jpg
http://www.latimes.com/includes/soundslides/oil-spill-history/oilspill11.jpg
The process is the punishment.
The trend towards posts like this seems to confirm that we are in the “Twilight of the climate movement”. In reality it’s all over – but of course there will remain a diminishing group of flat earthers denying reality and struggling desperately to keep their religion alive and convert others to believe what they believe.
Shakers.
Skeptics make cool furniture?
You shake the tree, I gather the fruit.
Utterly wacked. The planet is right now experiencing the warmest temperatures in recorded history. There is no indication whatseover, or reason to think, that this is going to stop now.
Run awaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyy!! Run awaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyy!!!
David Appell,
You are a gullible ijit.
What a dumb comment. “The planet is right now experiencing the warmest temperatures in recorded history.” Whose history? Dummy.
The planet is in a cold period – one of only three cold periods in the past 500 million years. Don’t you know anything. Life thrives when the planet is much warmer than now and struggles when colder than now. Unless you are really dumb you should be able to put two and 2 together and realise that warming is not a serious threat but cooling is.
You many not realise it, but we are past the peak of the current interglacial. We are in the period of descent towards the next glaciation. Increasing GHG concentratiosn in the atmosphere are delaying the onset of the next abrupt cooling event and reducing its rate and magnitude when it does happen.
Are you too tied to your ideology to be capable of challenging your beliefs?
You haven’t been able to show that any warming that might occur is dangerous. Your scaremongering is based on foolish ideological beliefs and ignorance. You are like the gullible people who believed what ever they were told by higher authority during the Dark Ages.
The Earth’s got a fever !!! …
http://icons.wxug.com/hurricane/2016/201603.jpg
https://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/warmest-march-in-global-recordkeeping-2016-roars-ahead-of-pack
jim2,
Of course, compared with the Earth’s temperature before the seas cooled to boiling, one could infer that Gaia has died, and we’re living on a slowly cooling corpse.
No amount of blankets will heat up a corpse. I’m pleased, really. I prefer seas that aren’t boiling.
Cheers.
Though it is just another temporary work around…
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/sun-god-apollo-presides-over-final-flame-rehearsal-133133332–oly.html
it’s time again for running and watching the clock because we have been given the flame from the Sun. Then get back to work people.
Hi Judith, though I have a submission with you at the moment that’s maybe the source of confusion, as several folks have noted above this post is not ‘by Andy West’. I have never worked for Exxon!
Good grief! my poor addled brain. Fixed, and I will get to your post later today.
Thanks for fixing :)
> I have never worked for Exxon!
Good for you, as teleworking wasn’t quite advanced at the time.
I’ve worked at home Ohio to NJ from 1987, so it’s out out of range by much.
Full disclosure: Exxon/Mobile (Linden) donated an old analog computer to my high school in the 50s.
The other Andy’s in Australia, rhhardin. Your school computer should be worth more than you may presume, e.g.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1328439/First-Apple-Steve-Jobs-auction-150k-Christies.html
From the article:
…
The American College of Physicians is urging physicians to be part of the movement to curb greenhouse gas emissions because public and individuals’ health depends on it.
“The [ACP] urges physicians to help combat climate change by advocating for effective climate change adaptation and mitigation policies, helping to advance a low-carbon healthcare sector and by educating communities about potential health dangers posed by climate change,” ACP President Wayne Riley, MD, said in a statement. “We need to take action now to protect the health of our community’s most vulnerable members — including our children, our seniors, people with chronic illnesses and the poor — because our climate is already changing and people are already being harmed.”
Physicians have a responsibility to help combat climate change as it relates to human health, according to the ACP, which cites increases in respiratory and heat-related illnesses; diseases passed by insects; water-borne diseases; food and water insecurity; and behavioral health issues as potential risks.
…
http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/hospital-physician-relationships/acp-calls-on-physicians-to-combat-climate-change.html
> For some of the peer-reviewed articles I only had an abstract and for some I could find the reference but no abstract or text without paying a fee.
http://sci-hub.io/
Sci-hub violates copyright. Are you encouraging a RICO conspiracy?
Only a PORTO.
Another interesting link:
http://panamapapers.sueddeutsche.de/en/
Let’s hope opluso is near his fainting couch.
I might faint the day you don’t toss a tub of herrings into any discussion.
I prefer squirrels, dear opluso. You should too.
Considering how you recently exploited otters’ comments to peddle your meme, you might wish to drop the squirrels.
Your leading question and your “I’m an Internet lawyer” act are duly noted.
opluso,
If researchers feel their intellectual property rights have been violated, I believe they can seek legal redress. I take the view that people properly entitled to access certain documents, have allowed sci-hub to also view those documents.
Sci-hub might even appear to be like a person with a large library, who leaves their front door open at all times, allowing curious persons to peruse their collection, and even take copies to read at a later time.
I support unfettered free speech, and I also support unfettered free access to published scientific papers.
Possibly not the most popular views, but there they are.
If scientists doesn’t want people to freely access their research, don’t publish it. Hide it away. Scientific secrecy! Who knows, if you publish, people might find fault with your research.
I’m only partially joking, of course.
If researchers say they will provide free copies on request, then I do them no harm by reading elsewhere. This is not an excuse, just an observation. If I can access a publication for free, I will. If I want to do it with the least amount of effort on my part, I will. If people want to sue me, they can.
Freedom!
Cheers.
MF:
Elsevier has been fighting to shut down sci-hub for a while. If it turns out like the RIAA’s suits against individual music pirates, then “frequent fliers” on sci-hub (cough * mosher * cough) might want to start hiding their assets.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20151207/07204733011/elsevier-granted-injunction-against-research-paper-pirate-site-which-immediately-moves-to-new-domain-to-dodge-it.shtml
opluso,
From your link –
“Elbakyan, who was born and educated in Kazakhstan and is now based in Russia, says she doesn’t think that reviving her site violates the New York court ruling, because Sci-Hub is not a US-based company, and she is not a US citizen or resident of New York.”
Elsevier is free to sue me in US court, or even in my location, if it wants to waste its money. I suggested a similar course of action to Microsoft, some years ago. They apparently chose not to proceed. If Elsevier is not competent enough to to figure out how to stop me reading research papers without paying it for the privilege, I have little sympathy.
Theft? Not at all. Copyright infringement? Let a court with valid jurisdiction decide. Elsevier’s choice. Maybe they realise I’m legally exceptionally short in the pockets.
Cheers.
How do you lie about the risk of a non-problem… by calling it a problem?
> Mr. Scheiderman may have made the “error of assuming facts that are not in evidence.” He assumes that man-made greenhouse gases are a significant factor in climate change and that the resulting enhanced climate change is dangerous. Neither assertion has been proven.
A quote where Mr. Schneiderman makes both assumption might be nice.
Notice how Andy switches from “not in evidence” to “proven.”
Then there’s a link to Bob’s classic:
https://andymaypetrophysicist.com/evidence-for-man-made-climate-change/
I’ve added “Climate has always always changed, and it always will” to the Matrix, with a link to Andy’s reformatting:
https://contrarianmatrix.wordpress.com/lots-of-theories/
Many thanks!
Andy May, thank you for the essay.
Exxon probably stands to benefit fantastically from alarmism, but also probably knows better than to put all its eggs into one basket.
What they likely found back then is that there is no technical risk, only regulatory and political risks, and in the future, PR.
What might we see? One possibility that has likely been overlooked, Exxon fights the subpoena’s on technical grounds and then volunteers the information.
“What might we see? One possibility that has likely been overlooked, Exxon fights the subpoena’s on technical grounds and then volunteers the information.”
It makes a great deal of sense for them to do this – I believe this is what will ultimately happen. It sends two messages – ExMo will not take crap from anyone, and ExMo really is a good corporate citizen.
They will be the most careful and cautious they can possibly be. Post Prince William Sound, it’s their thing. They’re not going to join a side and fight.
As the discussion is moving, it is important to note that the assertion in the post that this is a first amendment free speech case has collapsed. Commercial speech is a very different thing
> a first amendment free speech case has collapsed
Libertarian transhumanists might never let go of that 1st amendment card, Eli. They will blog about it forevermore in their after-first-lives.
Libertarian transhumanist!?
I knew I was heteropatriarchal, authoritarian, cisexist, triumphalistic,
nationalistic, LGBTXYZphobic. denialistic, and an all around naughty person but …
now I have to add libertarian transhumanist?
And this is only my first incarnation?
Dang.
Only if you identify with Glenn, rebel:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Reynolds#cite_ref-10
Williard
from your link –
“a world where happily married gay people have closets full of assault weapons to guard their pot”
ya’ had me at hello
I acknowledge your higher enlightened state
:)
ER partly incorrect. You are not going to like how this turns out.
NY AG Schneiderman can use the Martin Act as cover.
But US VI AG Walker cannot. Hence Exxon’s motion to quash Walker’s subpoena–there is no probable cause of a ‘crime’ under US VI law. And Walker also hit CEI with a subpoena. That is pure First Amendment. Criminal under 18USC241. And civil liability under 42USC1985. And the conspiracy to deprive constitutional rights reaches to all who attended the meeting in NYC prior to the AG press conference, which includes several other AG’s without a Martin Act for cover (Vermont, California,…) and a representative of Union of Concerned Scientists. It surely extends to the Center for International Environmental Law, concerning the misleading claims and out of context documents it placed on its website under “Smoke and Fumes”. It might extend to the Scripps meeting two years ago in California where this was originally brainstormed by the likes of Oreskes.
> You are not going to like how this turns out.
Politics is so much more tractable than climate, after all.
Ditto you as ER, Willard. And see the further facts below. CEI may not be able to pursue a US attorney to go after State AG’s under 18USC241, although perhaps they might. But they sure can use 42USC1985. And against the AG’s in their personal as well as official capacity, since other AG’s have already weighed in on abuse of prosecutorial discretion.
These “may,” “might” and “can” counterbalance the categoricity of your futurological argument, Sir.
Very good post. Over at WUWT a couple of days ago, David Middleton dug into the most damning of the CIEL documents in their “Smoke and Fumes” posting, which is part of the background story to the AG’s. He discovered that the most ‘damning’ doc, an SRI report to the API, substantially (and probably deliberately) misrepresents a key paper, Moller 1963. The paper abstract actually concluded, “Thus the theory that climatic variations are effected by variations in the CO2 content becomes very questionable.” Moller simply calculated the consequences for changes in humidity feedback. And it turns out that the actual change in relative humidity at 600mb calculated by Middleton (-4.72%/C) is very close the to the value (-4.66%/C) Moller said meant and ECS of 1.5 and nothing to worry about. He said it in 1963.
So ExxonMobil was not alone in concluding there were great uncertainties, which IPCC and the warmunists have consistently glossed over. IMO Schneiderman has bitten off more than he can chew.
Should IPCC be investigated for “lying to the public about the risks of climate change?” Is exaggerating the risks (crying Fire! in a theater) more dangerous then under-estimating them?
Here is a good source of information about climate science history
“Poor countries walk out of UN climate talks [in Warsaw, Poland]”, says Luboš Motl. “132 countries were apparently expecting that they would be paid compensations for extreme weather events… Many of the countries are governed by shamans who believe that thunderstorms are created by witches. Almost all of these countries are dominated by folks who just don’t grasp science, not even at the elementary level. The IPCC was produced to support these beliefs that Exxon creates hurricanes, McDonald’s creates typhoons, the Great Devil is responsible for the floods, and the Little Devil (renamed to the rabid dog by the mullah-in-chief today) brought the wildfires to the world. And everyone will be living in a happy paradise once the assets of these villains are confiscated and redistributed.”
Pingback: The Climate Inquisition: Attorney Generals Go Rogue | Big Picture News, Informed Analysis
The witch hunters are up for a Pulitzer Prize:
http://us2.campaign-archive2.com/?u=7c733794100bcc7e083a163f0&id=31739942f2&e=03c7393f3d
That is sad. Shows how biased the media have become. Still, nominated does not mean won. Not sure how the Pulitzer nominations work.
Did some legal research on AG Schneiderman’s ostensible cover, the 1921 NY Martin Act, General Business Law Article 23-A. It hands the AG very broad investigative powers “whenever it shall appear to the AG, either upon complaint or otherwise”… that there is a ‘fraud’ (defined below). The Act is a 48 page slog, but there are some interesting twists the denizens will want to know about. Bottom line, Schneiderman is on very thin ice concerning abuse of prosecutorial discretion. And there is a rich vein of irony.
Section 352 para1 sets forth the types of transactions to which the Martin Act applies. The two basic types are exchange traded commodities, and securities. Crude is such a commodity, as is diesel, gasoline, and natural gas. Plainly Exxon Mobil also has securities.
The Act is aimed at ‘to defraud, or obtain money by false pretenses’. Among the indicia are “misrepresentation, concealment, suppression (of relevant information concerning commodities or securities)”…”which is fraudulent of which would operate as a fraud.”
The AG is given broad investigative powers including the subpoena.
There is no actual fraud or false pretenses (gasoline burns in car engines just as promised). But there is also a Martin Act violation under 352 c1b if “Any promise or representation as to the future is beyond reasonable expectation or unwarranted by existing circumstances.”
Ok, Orestes is complaining “Merchants of Doubt.” CEIL posted “Smoke and Fumes”. So Schneiderman can legitimately think he is empowered ‘under complain or otherwise’ under the ‘misrepresentation, concealment, suppression’ tests.
Exxon published all its research and participated in IPCC. So nothing is suppressed or concealed, unlike big tobacco.
What about misrepresentation? Exxon’s fuels operate exactly as represented. They produce CO2. Exxon never said they didn’t. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, Exxon never said it wasn’t. The uncertainties are how much it might warm because of feedbacks, and with what speculative consequences. Exxon’s published papers apparently go into those uncertainties in some detail.
Martin Act violations arise (1) ‘if future promises or representations are beyond reasonable expectation’. Well, Schneiderman might argue Exxon promised there would not be global warming–but it didn’t. At worst it took no official position until jumping on board the AGW bandwagon about a decade ago (when arguing for a carbon tax differentially hurts coal so helps natural gas). Remaining silent in the face of substantial uncertainty is NOT an affirmative promise or representation. The premise fails.
(2) ‘or unwarranted by EXISTING circumstances’. The existing circumstances include no meaningful warming this century, no accelerating sea level rise, an apparent recovery of Arctic sea ice, models about future warming refuted by absence of tropical troposphere hotspot and the pause, and beneficial greening of C3 plants.
Based on existing circumstances, only Exxon affirmatively warning about future CAGW would constitute a Martin violation. So if there is Martin Act violation, it is Exxon now advocating for carbon taxes as a solution to AGW. Somehow, I don’t think that is what Schneiderman and Oreskes intend.
You should team up with opluso, Sir.
I am a licensed attorney in good standing. No need to team with one.
If licensed attorney don’t need to team with one another, Sir Rud, why do we seem names of attorney teams all the time?
Best of luck with your new quest. Let’s hope it’ll turn into another e-book.
Willard:
Our respective remarks above (relevant to your “team up” suggestion) have, like Moriarty and Holmes at Reichenbach Falls, tumbled into the abyss and disappeared.
A mystery worthy of Sherlock himself. Or perhaps a ninja.
That’s “normal,” opluso. Thank you nevertheless for the kind words.
Willard,
Given that Rud is Harvard Law educated, I’m thinking you might be
suffering from DK.
Best to stand back and watch. popcorn.. go long.
> Given that Rud is Harvard Law educated, I’m thinking you might be
suffering from DK.
Were he from Chicago Law School, would I be suffering from the curse of knowledge?
Anyone who can read Bloomberg know about Sir Rud’s qualifications. Anyone who read Judy’s know that Sir Rud’s qualifications know no bound.
My daily popcorn bowl is almost empty already.
Were he from Chicago Law School, would I be suffering from the curse of knowledge?
No. If he were from Chicago Law School I would still be concerned
that you and Eli were possible DK cases.
Perhaps you and Eli should team up with brandon and Opine.
“My daily popcorn bowl is almost empty already.”
Silly goose, that is why I said go long. you Dont actually have to OWN the popcorn, buy options, you dont actually take delivery.
jeez.
But since we all get opinions I would say CEI should push for sanctions on the SOL alone.
> I would still be concerned
that you and Eli were possible DK cases.
Identifying the specific beliefs I hold that is the cause for concern would help substantiate the DK hypothesis.
***
> that is why I said go long
You’re at least 2 years too late.
“Identifying the specific beliefs I hold that is the cause for concern would help substantiate the DK hypothesis.”
Simple: you suggested he team up with opuso.
When was the last time you showed any aptitude for creating
effective legal teams?
***
> that is why I said go long
You’re at least 2 years too late.
Silly Goose, You can go long any time. Standing here today
you have a choice.
Go short popcorn
Go Long Popcorn
Stay out.
if your bowl is empty that’s immaterial.
if your bowl was full you’d have the same three choices.
regardless of your bowl, you have the same choice.
Go Long: means you think this will be entertaining.
Go short; means it will not have entertainment value.
Do nothing: err you have no opinion.
> Simple: you suggested he team up with opuso. When was the last time you showed any aptitude for creating effective legal teams?
If you think I asked that because I claimed any aptitude for creating effective legal teams, your appeal to DK suffers from DK.
I bet you don’t read the thread with an RSS reader.
***
> You can go long any time.
If I follow your metaphor, I seldom do otherwise.
Audits never end.
You don’t have any legal belief to attribute to me.
You should have checked first.
You went short instead.
Bummer.
***
If I take your metaphor litterally, I’m long in related sectors since at least 2 years ago.
SM:
I like it! And if it’s copyrighted I can just steal it.
There’s this occurence of “opine” in an exchange that mentions ninjas:
https://judithcurry.com/2015/06/20/week-in-review-politics-and-policy-edition-4/#comment-711905
There’s this other occurence:
https://judithcurry.com/2015/08/28/week-in-review-science-edition-19/#comment-728194
Previously, there was a round of parsomatics over the very meaning of “opine.” I can try to find it back if needed.
It is certainly not clear that all of Exxon’s research has been published, and remember this all started in the 1970s or even earlier. OTOH EINALANAU
OK, YAAL
XON should have ‘dumped’ their cherry picked propriatery data. Why should the AGW crowd get it? You guys will just want to poke holes in it. Was their study publicly funded like yours?
ER, that is true but not legally relevant, since Exxon’s express policy cited by Andy May’s excellent post was that all of its climate research should be published.
ER, you would not have made it through 1L. (BTW, a great movie, and one where I had the real ‘misfortune’ of suffering through the actual civil procedure 1L of the actual prof SOB the movie modeled, ‘in’famous Arthur Miller.) Been there, done that.
Your riposte is beyond feeble.
And it’s the government’s job to ascertain if a corpoartion adequately publishes all of its research? And if it doesn’t, it’s the government’s job to assume that research is valid and therefore the private company has engaged in criminal activity? And that if research that may have been relevant from the 1970s was not published, there is no statute of limitations of some kind? Etc, ad nauseam.
Let fascism thrive!!!
Nice brief on the Martin Act, etc. You might want to follow up on the recent coal cases to gain insight into the AG’s approach against Exxon regarding direct statements and omissions.
However, the AG is also launching a trawler fleet of a fishing expedition for any outside activities (e.g., support for CEI) that either run afoul of some sort of duty to inform or can at least be painted to look that way. That’s also where he (and other AGs) run into First Amend issues.
I haven’t explored whether the Martin Act’s reach can be extended to third party statements that are beyond the control of, but favorable to, Exxon. If not, the AG has a much higher burden to carry into court.
In any event, Exxon has indicated it will not roll over and play piggy bank. So we may not know all of the answers for several years.
It cannot. And see my answer to your statute of limitations question far above. Actually, practicing law vicariously is more fun than I had imagined. At least here in this way. Versus poor defenseless lawyer less ignorant souls like ER and Willard. Even SM apparently gets it and ordered popcorn.
rist.
I maybe dumb but I’m not stupid.
Thank you! Excellent argument counselor.
Andy, I am but a legal midget standing on your giant fact shoulders.
Never did want to practice law per se. Have found that I always had to anyway, force majeure, as here. Sad commentary on US society.
Nice work Andy May! Having worked for Exxon for 30 years I have no doubt that Exxon will prevail in refuting the nonsense cooked up by Oreskes and her ilk.
Oreskes, the rest of the green blob and Schneiderman should have chosen another target. Exxon has the financial, intellectual and legal resources to fight this for a long time.
So did Philip Morris
You continue to conflate two very different issues, like Oreskes has.
Now present your hard evidence that the two are similar, rather than your Lew based conspiracy ideation. You cannot, and you already know it to be so. Else, would have provided same to Schneiderman.
BTW, Oreskes has significant gift impacts on Harvard. None positive. A vote with feet thing.
Perhaps Eli should have completed his sentence, Sir Rud:
So Philip Morris had financial, intellectual, and legal resources.
They may not have had you on their side, however.
When will Mr. Schneiderman receive your legal missive?
Alabama sued ExxonMobil and won a large judgment. The vast majority of it was chopped away by an appellate court.
Make no mistake, ExxonMobil is no Philip Morris.
An excellent article on this issue:
http://www.fed-soc.org/blog/detail/?dbid=428
An absolutely terrific find on this subject. Not legalistic, as mine. Wow, this this is hotting up nicely. Many cudos for bringing this to the fore on top of all the legal arguments above.
The not-so-Virginal Islands having Cohen Milstein as their “contingency fee counsel” is like a poker tell. It’s all about the money.
Is this why many US citizens strongly protect their right to bear arms?
It’s basically because of John Wayne… Hollywood history is far better known than American history.
Where does all that money go?
http://www.alternet.org/economy/bank-fines-and-crime
It’s history.
No, it’s primarily because Whites, particularly old guys, feel they need guns to protect themselves against Blacks.
Blacks too need guns too to protect themselves against other Blacks. Terrorists need guns to carry out their evil acts. Pro Life extremists need guns to shoot up abortion clinics. Then we have crazies who need guns to murder lots of people at schools, theaters, and other crowded places.
Few people take up arms against the U.S. government because it’s military forces are too formidable. It did happen during the mid-1800’s but the rebels were defeated.
I should add that some American gun owners just want guns for hunting and/or target shooting, and because they think guns are pretty.
Max…bowling for Columbine High. What is in that pigeon hole?
Max10K, how little you actually know about the real world as it actually exists. Sad. See my reply to similar nonsense at WUWT. BTW, you are not NOT welcome at my real world farm.
No, I will not see your reply at WUWT. I would rather dive into a pile of steaming excrement than go to that sorry excuse for blog. So if you have anything to say about firearms, say it here.
Max, why do you worry about guns when you have the depth of experience behind you?
Well it is clear at least two people here lack any sort of understanding of US history and the basis for the 2nd Amendment.
“Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”
– Tench Coxe, in Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution
“The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”
– Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188
If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.
– Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
“That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms … “
– Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)
“[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
–James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46
“To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.”
–John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)
“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.”
–Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).
“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American…[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”
–Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
“Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.”
–Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
“What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.”
– Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356
“The right of the people to keep and bear … arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country …”
– James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
“What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty …. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.”
– Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789
” … but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights …”
– Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29
“Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?”
– Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836
“The great object is, that every man be armed … Every one who is able may have a gun.”
– Patrick Henry, Elliot, p.3:386
“O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone …”
– Patrick Henry, Elliot p. 3:50-53, in Virginia Ratifying Convention demanding a guarantee of the right to bear arms
“The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.”
– Zacharia Johnson, delegate to Virginia Ratifying Convention, Elliot, 3:645-6
“Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms … The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard, against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible.”
– Hubert H. Humphrey, Senator, Vice President, 22 October 1959
“The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpation of power by rulers. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally … enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”
– Joseph Story, Supreme Court Justice, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, p. 3:746-7, 1833
” … most attractive to Americans, the possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave, it being the ultimate means by which freedom was to be preserved.”
– James Burgh, 18th century English Libertarian writer, Shalhope, The Ideological Origins of the Second Amendment, p.604
“The right [to bear arms] is general. It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been explained elsewhere, consists of those persons who, under the laws, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon…. [I]f the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of the guarantee might be defeated altogether by the action or the neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in so doing the laws of public order.”
– Thomas M. Cooley, General Principles of Constitutional Law, Third Edition [1898]
So, JCH, where does John Wayne come into the picture?
Max, you are simply an offensive jacka$$, whose sole talent is the ability to slip your keepers and go off your meds.
Wow, timg56, I’m impressed. Thanks for posting all that. I learn’t a lot.
I also learnt (again) max1ok hasn’t a clue about the history of the country he lives in
The fun and games will continue until Trump is elected.
When Trump is elected and controls the DOJ some of these people will reap the whirlwind.
I now recognise this issue is very important. I hope Exxon has the guts to pursue it all the way, win it, gain enormous publicity along the way, humiliate the CAGW alarmists and provide a clear case to convince the public, media, and politicians that CAGW is an ideological agenda; it (the “C” part) is not supported by valid, relevant science or economics. We need something like this Exxon case to halt this damaging ideological agenda or it will continue to drag the developed world down.
Peter, ExxonMobile has reformed, and would not want to associate with the likes of you. Here you are trying to suck up to an outfit that would regard you as an undesirable. I feel embarrassed for you.
Max,
If you could feel embarrassment, you would have shut up and slunk off long ago.
PL, yes. Why I have volunteered “pro bono” observations. Somebody with deep pockets needs to stuff this legal nonsense. Exxon is a good candidate, and I am a willing legal volunteer. And my cost is irresistible—0$/hour.
Well done Rud. Thank you. I really hope they take you up on your offer.
max1ok,
Would you like to be embarrassed for me as well? If it’s not too much trouble, of course.
I can never be bothered expending effort to do anything as completely pointless as feeling embarrassed. I’m happy enough to leave it to people like you, who get satisfaction from feeling embarrassment.
Don’t bother to thank me, it’s my pleasure.
Cheers.
PL, yes. Why I have volunteered “pro bono” observations. Max10K, I don’t think so. Good luck with your fantasies.
Mike, I’ve always been embarrassed for you. I hope this time it’s different, and you haven’t been making a fool of your self sucking up to ExxonMobile, when it’s obvious the corporation would regard a global warming denier like you as a pariah.
ristvan | April 20, 2016 at 7:57 pm |
“PL, yes. Why I have volunteered “pro bono” observations. Somebody with deep pockets needs to stuff this legal nonsense. Exxon is a good candidate, and I am a willing legal volunteer. And my cost is irresistible—0$/hour.”
_______
If, as you have said, you have contributed to that denier site called WUWT, has it not occurred to you that ExxonMobile might consider any association with you a liability?
If I were the corporation’s CE, I would think twice before accepting the services of anyone who had been paling around with Anthony Watts or any another high profile global warming contrarian.
Sorry, ristvan, but I fear you may be damaged goods in the eyes of ExxonMobile. You should have chosen your friends more carefully. As my mother use to say “you will be known by the company you keep.”
I could be wrong. Why don’t you write a letter to ExxonMobile offering your services? Post the reply here.
OK,
This one is going to be hard to top:
“Max,
If you could feel embarrassment, you would have shut up and slunk off long ago.”
So, who can find the errors in these comments?
“If I were the corporation’s CE, I would think twice before accepting the services of anyone who had been paling around with Anthony Watts or any another high profile global warming contrarian.
Sorry, ristvan, but I fear you may be damaged goods in the eyes of ExxonMobile. You should have chosen your friends more carefully. As my mother use to say “you will be known by the company you keep.”
1) max thinking twice about anything? Unless he is referring to the number of times he’s thought, total.
2) max’s mother saying anything in his presence, other than “Not my kid. Never seen the runt before in my life.”
The US legal system indeed has many issues but the worst aspects of private and public legal profiteering at the expense of long suffering taxpayers and shareholders as described in Judith’s link has taken my breath away.
The Australian legal system has its faults, in that it seems that the rich can game the system in their favour at the expense of the less wealthy, but at least the excesses of the US justice system has been avoided.
A possible cause of this situation IMO is the fact that legal appointments are most often politically motivated, even in Australia. Our High Court judges are selected for their political leanings more than for their judicial experience.
curryja: http://www.fed-soc.org/blog/detail/?dbid=428
thank you for the link.
The way I understand it from this essay is that Exxon Mobil recognizes the current main-stream science and this is not good news for them. Exxon Mobil should distant themselves from the current main-stream science to win.
Correction….
The way I understand it from this essay is that Exxon Mobil recognizes the current main-stream science and this is not good news for them. Exxon Mobil should distance themselves from the current main-stream science to win.
Lets try it legally, once again for laymen. ExxonMobil did not disagree with the MS science. They did not act on it because of the enormous uncertainties they also discovered and published. Then they jumped on the AGW Bandwagon within the 3 year S. L. to promote their own nat gas v. coal. Maybe an ironic Martin violation, but probably not since Exxon never did not sell coal. No harm, no foul. Scheinederman invented by Oreskes et. al. comes up empty. Big own goal. Popcorn in order.
Ristvan,
Legally, science cannot be settled in court for it is not a crime to be wrong in scientific matters, please correct me if am wrong. If my understanding is right, then all what it takes is to address the climate as a science rather than social-economical issue. Climate is a science after all, and if the main-stream climate science is found to be wrong, then no one could be prosecuted.
The Tobacco case largely was based on tobacco companies acknowledging cancer risks in private (they actually ran their scientific research papers thru the legal dept to keep them out of discovery) while denying it in public. Exxon, in contrast, has always participated in mainstream scientific research on climate (among many other issues).
The RICO angle against Exxon is partly based on the company’s support for free market groups that argue against government regulations of all sorts — including climate regulations. Most of these groups stress the large uncertainties in climate science (especially the likelihood of catstrophic harms) and this really, really p*sses off CAGW warriors like Oreskes.
Opluso,
If your analysis is correct, then Exxon Mobil will have a hard time justifying their recognizing the main-stream climate science and being against government regulations. Exxon Mobil best bid is to get to the bottom of the current main-stream climate science and figure out the truth about the climate science. If the current main-stream climate science is found to be wrong, then Exxon Mobil have been wrong all along on a scientific matter and therefore cannot be prosecuted. There are no other alternatives to Exxon Mobil.
I do not see the analogy with the tobaco settlement. The climate issue has become social-economical-political. This means hat there is potential vote associated with this issue and politician, rightfully so, are interested. The only way out of this mess is to bring the climate issue to its true nature as a scientific matter first.
What correction? The two comments are the same.
Distance in place of distant
Thanks,
I need to read harder!
What Exxon recognizes is that current mainstream science is represented by fascists who are trying to criminalize skepticism and dissent.
http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-climate-change-weather-america-20160420-story.html
Global warming has made the weather better for most in U.S. — but don’t get used to it, study says
Top Scientist Resigns Admitting Man Made Global Warming Is A Big Scam
http://wearechange.org/top-scientist-resigns-admitting-man-made-global-warming-is-a-big-scam/
http://wearechange.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/global-warming-scientist-resigns-scam-900×350-600×233.jpg
He’s a professor emeritus. I might have known. The poor old man must be close to age 90, as he says he’s been an APS member for 67 years. Why call attention to the frailty of the aged? This is very sad. Shame on you ordvic.
It was back in 2010 and well covered at the time. The APS responded. He died a few months later aged 87.
http://www.aps.org/about/pressreleases/haroldlewis.cfm
Thanks, Jim D. What I saw at the top of orvic’s link was
“Top Scientist Resigns Admitting Man Made Global Warming Is A Big Scam
by Jeffrey Phillips | Jan 29, 2016”
But reading further I see the letter of resignation was from 2010. I guess ordvic didn’t catch that before posting the link.
Or maybe he did, and posted it anyway.
He can be tricky.
Max you appear to have an ageism problem.
http://www.alfa.org/alfa/Ageism.asp
Shame on You max1ok!
Well, this post turned into a big tickle-fight among eunuchs trying to see if the cuffs match the collars.
Nihil sub sole novum, Geo.
Take a longer view:
https://action.oxfamamerica.org/stoptaxdodging/data-table/
As you can see, Exxon needs all the pro bono it can get.
If this blog were about tax-dodging aspects of corporate behavior, I might offer you my pro bono support. But it isn’t so I don’t. Now back to the tickling.
Thanks, opluso.
Then I hope I can get your support regarding the main point of my comment, i.e. proclaiming that somebody with deep pockets needs to stuff this legal nonsense looks a bit farfetched. After all, we’re speaking about one of the (and for many years ze) biggest corporations in the world. They’re big boys. They may not need midgets.
This, we must presume, is somehow relevant to this blog (post).
Anti-tax dodging is fine. That’s one reason why my wife and I recently re-registered from libertarian to democrat to vote for Bernie in California.
The Exxon furfluffle has nothing to do with that. In fact, this type of legal blackmail is why corporate giants, to protect shareholder value, must research less and be more legalistic and secretive. This is why industrial innovation is not done with vigor in the States as it once was: the result of the critic taking full control of the arena. If you want to blame someone for the proliferation of filthy, dirty coal killing poor, minority babies and dementing the elderly…. look in the mirror.
The mirror of the auditing sciences has many faces, Geo.
This is an apt description of the CAGW alarmists:
But are they frauds, or merely fools?
Of course, I mean no disrespect to the delusional psychotics. In their madness, they truly believe. Let them idle away their useless years in the halls of academe, serving as an object lesson for those of us who admit to occasional doubt, or even to the prospect of being wrong!
Cheers.
Nah, that’s a description of nuclear power fanatics. Those zealots won’t be happy until
everyone has hair growing from their eyeballs.
“The Exxon researchers did not think a clear anthropogenic signal was detectable in 1979, because at that time the total temperature increase from 1850 had not exceeded 0.5°C, their assumed natural variability. So, they thought man-made warming might be clearly detected by the year 2000.”
2016 – plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose
“The average standard deviation of temperature was 0.98ºC± 0.27ºC. This suggests that while some portion of the temperature change observed in the 20th century was probably caused by greenhouse gases, there is a strong likelihood that the major portion was due to natural variations.”
Lloyd PJ. (2015) An estimate of the centennial variability of global temperatures. Energy & Environment · Vol. 26, No. 3.
Mike Flynn:
“You can’t even state what theory you suppose alleged climate scientists have as a basis for their odd opinions. It all seems to revolve about GHGs making things 33C hotter than they would otherwise be, which is obviously ridiculous. Just imagine, 1200 W/m2 from a 5500 C emitter, falling on a block of ice at the equator – and yet the ice doesn’t melt until around 11 am or later. The seas would all be 33 C colder – frozen right through.
Or is this just an average? The poles would get no colder, and maybe at the Equator temperatures would drop by 50 C. Brrrr.
So just what is the wonderful theory behind climate science? Does CO2 only work in bright sunlight? What about H2O, the most important GHG (according to NASA, anyway)?”
I’be come across this piece of empirical science denying hand-waving late so forgive me for posting a response here.
Ok, “odd opinions” eh?, so the world’s experts that have arrived at this empirical knowledge over the stretch of 150 years have directly given rise to max10k’s “odd opinion”.
That my friend most assuredly says far more of you that of max10k or the 150 years of science that are the basis of his “odd opinion”.
I’m sorry but “dragon-slayers” such as you deserve to be shot down and ridiculed for your ABCD ( Anything But Carbon Dioxide ) gainsaying of science. It stems from from a driver within yourself and has nothing to do with the science.
So climate scientists ( as well as other Earth sciences) are either…..
a)incompetent.
b)Fraudulent.
C)more knowledgeable than you.
The answer is blindingly obvious to 97% of the population my friend.
Any least Doug Cotton is unhinged enough to back it up with a (bonkers) theory.
That the earth is 33C warmer than it would be without CO2 in its atmosphere is non arguable. It does not do it on it’s own account of course as by being present it allows the liquid/vapour phase of H2O, which as I’m sure you know is the more powerful GHG.
So “obviously ridiculous” eh?
In short I find your posts disrespectful, arrogant and full of the hubris that marks a curtain “contrarian” that I find entirely repugnant.
As you would say..
Cheers
Oh and I look forward to your response, as I do enjoy trips down Lewis Caroll’s “rabbit hole” …. Just so long as I don’t stay too long and, especially, have to converse with the inhabitants.
So I will prob just let you vent some more spleen at a “warmist” ( remember ex UKMO ) for the benefit of your massive, and omniscient ego.
Tony Banton,
You wrote –
“So climate scientists ( as well as other Earth sciences) are either…..
a)incompetent.
b)Fraudulent.
C)more knowledgeable than you.
The answer is blindingly obvious to 97% of the population my friend.”
Your statement leaves out ignorant, misguided, gullible, fanatical, phobic, suffering from delusional psychosis, and others, of course.
You also imply that self styled climate scientists can only occupy one category, where it is obvious that a person could be both a fraud and a fool, for example. Delusional psychosis does not preclude a high level of function in some areas, but does not confer any protection against gullibility, say, or incompetence.
Climate is the average of weather, no more no less. The arithmetic calculations involved can no doubt be performed by a reasonably competent Chinese 8 year old. The net benefit of climatology to humanity is negative, as there have been precisely no measurable advantages accruing, albeit at great cost. The funds wasted might have been better employed in education, health facilities, infrastructure maintenance, and so on.
I am surprised you have included real scientists – as involved in the Earth sciences – with your self proclaimed climate scientists. You may have insulted some real scientists.
In any case, you are still unable to provide the theory underpinning so called climate science. Maybe it is so secret that it cannot be revealed to unbelievers such as myself, on pain of death. Maybe it is hiding, along with Steven Mosher’s missing clue, and Kevin Trenberths travesty of the missing heat.
“They seek it here,
They seek it there,
They seek that theory everywhere!
Is it hid in the ocean blue?
The answer, my friend, I leave to you!”
You haven’t provided any facts, as is the Warmist Wont, but a few poor attempts at emotional blackmail. If you find my comments arrogant, disrespectful, full of hubris, and repugnant, maybe you should not read them. Maybe you are right – maybe I am arrogant, disrespectful, full of hubris, repugnant, and a good few other things. Tough. Facts are facts, regardless of what we may think. Complaint about inconvenient facts will not make them go away.
In the meantime, continue to erect your poorly constructed straw men. They will collapse before you can demolish them with your limp noodle (apologies to His Noodliness, of course). I’ll clean up the mess – you don’t have to thank me.
When you produce a relevant scientific fact or two, get back to me, if you wish.
Cheers.
“so the world’s experts that have arrived at this empirical knowledge ”
I’ll leave the idea of ‘world experts’ for another time. Could you please, pretty please, tell me exactly what ’empirical knowledge’ was ‘arrived’ at?
I didn’t think one ‘arrived’ at empirical knowledge but forget that for the moment, and just tell me what ’empirical’ knowledge it is that you are referring to.
Galileo suffered the same type of persecution for his theories that differed from the prevailing theories of the authorities. History repeats itself as the zealots in the warming movement try to squelch the truth.
You think Mike Flynn is a Galileo? Lol.
It is better than Groucho commenting that you are the complete Zero. Lol even more!… What’s the idea anyway?
The truth, which I sincerely doubt you are equipped to recognize.
You never seem to have any idea so your point is often hard to see, we make a good match.
Attempts to relate climate “skeptics” to Galileo are based on a false equivalence. In his day, Galileo *was* science. He was persecuted by the church. Real skeptics, if they were scientists, would be making a contribution to science with peer reviewed papers that contain evidence, not simply denying science in blogs. By not making scientific contributions, climate skeptics are more like the church.
What is it that “Exxon-knew”?
What does – and does not – cause climate to change?
If it was, then Exxon know something about which no-one else has a clue. If they understand causes and movers of climate, they are the only ones who do.
Yes, that would be a good enough reason to burn them at the stake.
[Repost]
http://www.skynews.com.au/news/politics/federal/2016/04/20/climate-change-science-not-settled–brandis.html
H/T Benny Peiser, GWPF
The Aussie Attorney General seems to be a bit smarter than the US Attorneys General. Perhaps, in the absence of good leadership by the US, Australia will lead the way to free the world from the stupidity of the CAGW alarmists.
That is, using fossil fuels to generate energy actually creates negative economic growth:
================
if that was true then people would stop using fossil fuels overnight as it would drive them into bankruptcy. There would be zero need for governments to try and force this.
it costs a lot less to take the bus than to own a car and fill it with gas. Yet people choose the car over the bus. this tells you that there is some benefit to the car that is not being accounted for.
That is, using fossil fuels to generate energy actually creates negative economic growth:
===================
China has dramatically increased their use of fossil fuels over the past 20 years. And in the process went from a backward third world nation to rivalling the US for top spot in the worlds economy.
In contrast, the US had a big contraction in fossil fuel use in 2008, at the same time the US economy shrank and is still trying to recover. Fossil fuel use is down in Detroit. How are they doing?
This is far to clear and obvious for David Appell. Make a stupid comment supporting the beliefs of the CAGW ideologues and he’ll readily accept it and agree with you.
Reblogged this on I Didn't Ask To Be a Blog.
Exxon keeps reminding everyone, very rightly, that there are a lot of unknowns. No one seems to mention the biggest unknowns of all: Does the concept of an Average Global Temperature have any meaning? If it does, then where is the independent and peer reviewed research on how to calculate it on any day based on the highly complex physics of the atmosphere that is not understood very well, and which measurement requires accuracy on the order of at least tenths of a degree over the entire planet?.
The author Andy May said:
“If they withheld or suppressed climate research from the public or shareholders, it is not apparent in these documents.” [referring to 104 published documents and 22 internal documents that he catalogued]
Andy May’s article represents the Exxon viewpoint. Others have different viewpoints. In particular, I refer you to InsideClimateNews (ICN), who broke this ExxonMobil story and was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize for doing so.
http://insideclimatenews.org/content/Exxon-The-Road-Not-Taken
in summary, ICN said:
“It [the report of the ICN investigation] describes how Exxon conducted cutting-edge climate research decades ago and then, without revealing all that it had learned, worked at the forefront of climate denial, manufacturing doubt about the scientific consensus that its own scientists had confirmed.”
Some science organizations such as the Union of Concerned Scientists describe evidence that ExxonMobil and other fossil fuel organizations have fostered a coordinated disinformation campaign, assisted by front groups such as The Heartland Institute and Competitive Enterprise Institute.
The ICN story and other preliminary work have set the stage for the 18 AGs to investigate further into the possibility of fraud. Couching this as a free speech issue is missing the point. As AG Schneiderman said: “The First Amendment, ladies and gentlemen, does not give you the right to commit fraud.” We will have to wait to see how the investigations and the subpoenas shake out.
http://insideclimatenews.org/news/30032016/climate-change-fraud-investigation-exxon-eric-shneiderman-18-attorneys-general
Peter, you see nothing of importance in the fact all of the AG’s are Democrats?
My brother, who was a state prosecutor and US District Attorney considers this a gross misuse of power.
But never fear. Exxon is likely to hand them their heads.
“Peter, you see nothing of importance in the fact all of the AG’s are Democrats?”
Actually, yes I do. Great importance. But I did not want to get into a political argument.
To be straight, the importance I see is that almost no Republican would dare admit that he valued or agreed with climate science, or he would be “primaried” out of office. Do you see something strange in the fact that not a single Republican candidate for President has taken a positive position on global warming or climate science? That is another argument that I don’t want to get into now. Wait for a science article, when it is on-topic.
AGs doing lawsuits against big oil is not political.
Another point is that your perception of “abuse of power” depends on whether you think there is probable cause. There is a political content to this. I’ll give three cases and my personal opinion.
Baltimore AG charging five cops for murder: unlikely probable cause.
Rep. Lamar Smith requesting e-mails of NOAA climate scientists: no probable cause.
18 AGs against Exxon. et al: probable cause of disinformation; probable cause of fraud depends on statutes and evidence, TBD.
@Peter Smith “To be straight, the importance I see is that almost no Republican would dare admit that he valued or agreed with climate science”
Now why would this be the case? Maybe climate science needs to improve its voter credibility? If so, why has this happened? Is it because of misinformation? IMO yes but from which side of the AGW coin?
“Rep. Lamar Smith requesting e-mails of NOAA climate scientists: no probable cause.”
Smith doesn’t need any “probable cause”. Smith is the chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology. As such, Smith has jurisdiction over certain agencies, including the NOAA. Smith has “general and special investigative authority on all matters within the jurisdiction…” This general and special investigative authority is a part of the oversight Congress has over the agencies they create. Smith, in a statement had this to say about the matter:
““Congress cannot do its job when agencies openly defy Congress and refuse to turn over information. When an agency decides to alter the way it has analyzed historical temperature data for the past few decades, it’s crucial to understand on what basis those decisions were made.”
This investigation is not a criminal investigation of a private person, this investigation is by an oversight committee of Congress investigating one of its own agencies.
@Rangnaar
” A Pulitzer Prize was not to be found.”
I said they were a finalist, not a winner. There was one winner and two finalists.
http://www.pulitzer.org/finalists/insideclimate-news
The Pulitzer logo used to appear in the ICN article but now it is just a tiny thing in the banner at the top.
“Rep. Lamar Smith requesting e-mails of NOAA climate scientists: no probable cause.
18 AGs against Exxon. et al: probable cause of disinformation; probable cause of fraud depends on statutes and evidence, TBD.”
Lamar Smith is the Chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, which has jurisdiction over the NOAA, an agency created by Congress. In other words, the subpoena of data by Smith was well within his investigative authority and the NOAA is not a private person but is instead an administrative agency, and Smith’s committee is the oversight committee. As Smith states:
““Congress cannot do its job when agencies openly defy Congress and refuse to turn over information. When an agency decides to alter the way it has analyzed historical temperature data for the past few decades, it’s crucial to understand on what basis those decisions were made.”
Now, contrast that where you presume Smith is required to have “probable cause” to investigate that which has been tasked with over seeing, and with your 18 AG’s of whom you claim have “probable cause” for “disinformation” – could you cite those disinformation statutes? – and “fraud”, but apparently the so called fraud depends upon the evidence, and apparently you are arguing that the probable cause will manifest once the subpoena gives those AG’s the evidence they need to show probable cause.
@Peter M Davies
“Now why would this be the case? Maybe climate science needs to improve its voter credibility?”
I agree that climate science needs to improve its credibility, but the problem is that scientists just want to do science, not to be bothered with lobbying. I know that from personal experience. Given the huge fight about this issue, that is too bad.
“If so, why has this happened? Is it because of misinformation? IMO yes but from which side of the AGW coin?”
I don’t want to get into a food fight, but I’ll give you my opinion one time.
Republicans detest climate science (and also environmentalism) because its findings conflict with their world view of free enterprise, no regulation, and no taxes. Also important are the heavy donations of the fossil fuel industry toward Republican politicians. Also extremely important is the disinformation campaign that the 18 AG’s are concerned about.
The opposite side of the AGW coin, that scientists are engaged in a conspiracy to deceive, is preposterous if you think of the numbers. There are over ten thousand climate scientists worldwide and many more in related fields who are involved in gathering and publishing evidence. Every science society in the world endorses AGW. All the countries in the world endorse AGW and plan to reduce carbon emissions (COP21). Given these numbers, it is not reasonable to assume that there is a giant conspiracy of science against Republicans.
Thank you for responding Peter Smith. I, too, don’t participate in food fights either. Some commenters can’t distinguish between someone having an opinion and someone being a personification of all that may be wrong with that opinion.
I agree that scientists should simply do the science and leave the politics out of it, but unfortunately, some climate scientists seem to be wallowing in the politics and liking it. That alone could be enough to put the public off the science as a whole.
All conservatives detest climate science, not just republicans, for the reasons you have outlined. The AGW debate is mostly a war of words between liberal/socialists and conservative/right-wingers and there is not much common ground between them.
Finally, conspiracy ideation is not on my agenda but seems to be on many other commenters and this has IMO reflected badly on the general credibility of climate sceptics in general. There were attempts by a few individual climate scientists to distort the proper execution of the scientific process (as evidenced by the “climategate” emails) but these incidences were extremely rare and not part of any plot.
I’m certainly a conservative and would likely be a Repub if I was American (though with deepening despair of NATO from the bombing of Serbia to now).
I’m happy to be called a denialist, for all the emotional loading and imprecision of that term.
I am not only skeptical of the claims of much reported climate science, but also skeptical that a science of climate exists, except in the way surgery existed as a science before Semmelweis.
And I hate environmentalism, that’s true.
However, this misses a critical point and my main motive in wanting an end to Big Green. I am a conservationist first, and thus opposed to the thriftless lunacy of “climate solutions”. Short of a hot war, it’s hard to imagine how greater waste could have been generated in the name of fashionable dogma.
Top-down innovation and the forced mainstreaming of clunky technologies which only ever had niche value have set back the cause of real innovation and alternatives.
Moreover, all of this is leading the developed West away from coal and nukes and back into the world’s pipeline, territory and sea-lane tensions. (Wind and solar = gas and diesel, right?)
The New Yorker-caricature Republicans would never be my people, but if they are the enemy of Conservation’s potent new enemy, ie the mass neurosis called Environmentalism, I’m on their side. They can keep their cigars and Glenfiddich, I’ll take their coal.
I agree Moso. Too many white elephants was what you called it. Half-baked schemes in the name of environmentalism has cost ordinary taxpayers heaps and this phenomenon is not being adequately reported in the MSM.
Peter,
“probable cause of disinformation”. Where? The whole purpose of this exercise is to go fishing and hope they find something. They have no evidence of any disinformation campaign on the part of Exxon, other than a partisan news article. Similarly there is no evidence of fraud.
Regarding your opinions on Republicans, I am registered Republican and yes, I have a very low opinion of people who are activist Greens or environmentalists. Not because of free market principles, but because – like momoso I too believe in conservation and being good stewards of our natural world. A lot of Environmentalists apparently don’t understand what either term means. The result is a lot of energy and resources are wasted on some really idiotic ideas. Energy and resources which could be applied to real environmental problems.
Here is just one example. Environmental activists are beating the ocean acidification drum, trying to claim the world’s coral reefs are in danger. Yet it isn’t hard for a layman to educate themselves in the basic issues regard coral reefs and what is endangering them. Here is a hint – it isn’t CO2 and ocean acidification. When you work to convince people of the importance of your position by using false narratives or exaggerating the problems, so that people will act as you want them to, I see that as not only dishonest, but as actually working to prevent people from accomplishing real solutions. (Buy “you”, I’m referring to someone in general, not you personally.)
““The First Amendment, ladies and gentlemen, does not give you the right to commit fraud.”
No, it certainly does not, but apparently the Constitution for the United States of America gives government officials the privilege of committing fraud as long as they can show a good faith belief that it wasn’t fraud. Things like passing prohibitive legislation based on dubious science are fraudulent actions that courts have protected the fraudsters by claiming they had a “good faith belief” that the science was not dubious.
@Jean Paul Zodeaux
“Smith doesn’t need any “probable cause”. Smith is the chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology. As such, Smith has jurisdiction over certain agencies, including the NOAA. Smith has “general and special investigative authority on all matters within the jurisdiction…” ”
I am sure you are absolutely correct in a legal sense. I should have been more careful. Still, the prevailing view in the science community was and is that Lamar Smith’s actions were an abuse of power, or as a minimum, legal harassment. The reason this came up is that Lamar Smith disagreed with the findings of an NOAA paper that declared that the hiatus was over, or there never was a hiatus. The fact that Smith didn’t like a scientific study is not a good reason to rake the agency NOAA and the scientists involved over the coals. That is the equivalent of McCarthyism.
“The reason this came up is that Lamar Smith disagreed with the findings of an NOAA paper that declared that the hiatus was over, or there never was a hiatus. The fact that Smith didn’t like a scientific study is not a good reason to rake the agency NOAA and the scientists involved over the coals.”
Peter,
It goes way beyond Smith disagreeing with a single paper. That single paper, to begin with, disagrees with countless papers acknowledging the very hiatus that Karl et. al, see no evidence of, and the timing of that paper, released as it was, only made the paper even more suspect.
Peter Smith:
Looked at your first link. Then the section of what specifically was Exxon’s misdeeds. A Pulitzer Prize was not to be found.
Exxon studied the climate. Then it started lobbying, that is casting doubt and raising uncertainty. Is it because there’s science involved that makes it somehow liable to pay someone some money? I think that’s what it’s about. The people on whose behalf Exxon Mobil will be sued will see little if any benefit. Any winners will be the attorneys. Going from memory, here’s the tobacco settlement in Minnesota. A guy name Ciresi and others teamed up with my health insurance company and probably others. I suppose they were suing for all those higher premiums I paid as a smoker and perhaps my future health care costs. He won. He even negotiated on his behalf for how many millions he was going to get from the tobacco companies. Yes, I maintain the lawyer’s cut was negotiated along with whatever I, the poor victim was going to get which turned out to be a stop smoking kit from my health insurance provider. Big tobacco now pays millions of dollars each year to the some state agency that doles it out for stop smoking campaigns we listen to on the radio. Can’t think of anything else memorable they do but I imagine our legislature will raid that fund a bit if they aren’t already. They of course raised the price of a pack of cigarettes to compensate. So it seems to me Ciresi just made the cost of smoking higher while putting another indirect tax on it. Making poor smokers even poorer. Ciresi made so much money he ran for the Senate. Didn’t work out so well with that. If we are lucky, we’ll get a solar power garden accent light. That’s it. Your knights will have slain the oil dragon, which will still be in business and charging us more.
@Rangnaar
“A Pulitzer Prize was not to be found.”
Sorry, I responded to you above, and the post was mispositioned by my clumsiness. The Pulitzer was as a finalist, not a winner. See link above, and sorry for the duplicate post.
If and when these payments from Exxon Mobil for climate fraud to whomever show up in the gas pump prices, then what? They did this to smokers but no one cared. You shouldn’t smoke said the white haired old ladies. Now you’re going to do it to a lot more people.
@Rangnaar
The penalty payments involved, if any, and the cost to the consumer of the payments at the gas pump, are really small potatoes compared with benefits of public awareness in this case. If anything comes of this, I am confident that the public will not be unduly damaged by ExxonMobil’s disinformation. After all, this action is for the benefit of the public.
The real problem that must be faced is the economics of fixing AGW now vs. the much larger cost of letting it happen (business as usual) for a century or so. The cost to fix it and the cost of letting it happen increase in time. Folded into this is the economics of migrating to an economy of more renewable fuels, which may economists believe would offset the cost of abandoning coal and reducing carbon emissions.
Check “carbon fee and dividend” for revenue neutral a way to provide more economic incentive.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/CCL-pushing-for-US-fee-and-dividend.html
Drivel is a good description of the Exxon accusations.
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2016/04/14/yet-more-exxon-drivel/
I am reading in your first sentence, some Attorney Generals are suing Exxon Mobil to raise public awareness and Exxon’s acts aren’t going to turn out to matter much. The demand for gasoline is inelastic. Raise the price through a fee and not much happens to use. The list of things that depend on gasoline is long. Transportation of all kinds of things. Production of food. Raising the price of fuel will impact those costs unless a volume based dividend was implemented. But that would defeat the purpose. A volume based dividend might as well be paid out at the pump. The fee will find its way into the price of all kinds of products. There are arguments to be made for taxing or other control of non-CO2 air pollution. We might look at how much we have already cleaned the air and the economic impacts of ringing another decimal place out of the uncertainty.
“To let Exxon have their rebuttal first, because they are right,
Alan Jeffers, a spokesman for Exxon Mobil, called the new allegations absurd. “To suggest that we had definitive knowledge about human-induced climate change before the world’s scientists is not a credible thesis,” he said.”
Stoat somewhat siding with Exxon Mobil. So Exxon or its predecessor had a duty to act in 1957 or 1968 based upon what they knew. Stoat in his comments talks about 1990 when it was possibly known, becoming apparent. Scientists have urged action on climate change. Exxon who has quite a few scientists working for them can’t call for caution? If corporations didn’t exist, Democrats would invent them so they’d have one more thing to sue.
Define call for caution. How would a cautious approach appear in actions? If it’s just the words you want to hear they said them back in the 1950s. Anything more than that is politically unpalatable not to mention in the view of many (including myself) the case for any serious actions hasn’t been made to this day.
Caution can mean all kinds of things. Slowing the roll out of wind and solar as it appears too much and too early. Reducing the energy credits for the same. Using better accounting, old school accounting to evaluate the costs of renewables. Reduction of small scale subsidies to renewables. Some will say that’s more CO2 in the air. Yes. And it’s more money not frittered away when there is a supposed problem to solve. Certain energy credits could be improved on. Ceiling insulation, high efficiency furnaces and A/C units. LED bulbs may pan out economically, I don’t know?
http://mnprogressiveproject.com/minnesota-ag-swanson-joins-in-action-on-climate-fraud/
“For decades, ExxonMobil and its industry peers have spent billions intentionally misleading investors and general public about the dangers of climate change, resulting in an American public where only 64% accept climate science compared to over 97% of actual climate scientists.”
Big oil is responsible when only 64% blah, blah, blah. Big oil is responsible for losing the argument.
Pingback: Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #223 | Watts Up With That?
Pingback: Bulletin des climato-réalistes n°28 | La Terre du Futur
Note to Exxon: Lying About Climate Change Isn’t Free Speech—It’s Fraud:
http://www.thenation.com/article/note-to-exxon-lying-about-climate-change-isnt-free-speech-its-fraud/
“New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman raised the same question when he subpoenaed Exxon in November. The oil giant turned over some 10,000 pages of documents, which Schneiderman’s staff is reviewing. But when Virgin Islands Attorney General Claude Walker requested many of the same documents, Exxon not only refused; it went on the offensive. The company’s countersuit asserted that Walker’s subpoena was an attempt “to deter ExxonMobil from participating in ongoing public deliberations about climate change…. The chilling effect of this inquiry, which discriminates based on viewpoint to target one side of an ongoing policy debate, strikes at protected speech at the core of the First Amendment.”
It is not just ironic that this journalist accusing Exxon of fraud then fraudulently omits the fact that Schneiderman has the Martin Act in his favor and the rest of the AG’s do not.