[ROCKMAN]

onlooker - Please go thru the logic again: CC is predominantly
caused by GHG created by the process of burning fossil fuels. The overwhelming majority of fossil fuels burned are done by the fossil fuel
consumers compared to the entire industryet alone Exxon. Amazon, FedEx, the US Post Office, etc each produces more GHG then Exxon. The citizens of CA produce 100's of times more GHG then XOM. The US Dept of Defense is the single largest producer of GHG on the planet.

Aren't there many bigger fish to go after other then ExxonMobil? After all the goal is to punish the producers of GHG so severly that they significantly reduce such activiyies?

[Lore]

Much simpler though to go after the drug pusher then the user.

[onlooker]

Yes Rockman but Exxon is the one of the biggest oil companies who find and extract the oil, who also have had one of the most aggressive and documented history of spreading disinformation about the role of fossil fuels in global warming. I understand your statement about punishing producers of GHG but it is the unscrupulous campaign of Exxon and some others which have confused the public and by extension delayed a possible robust grassroots movement to try and shift away from FF. I compare Exxon to the cigarette companies who for years denied the cause and effect relation of cigarettes to health. I also understand that any attempt to drastically reduce FF are fraught with dislocations and destabilization to the economy, which is all the more reason delaying has been so detrimental. Finally, I am not so rabid about meting out justice to producers of GHG as what can any individual or company do considering all our way of living and doing economics is tied to FF.

[Cog]

So the answer is to punish a company selling a lawful product that the consumers of this product want? OMG the derp involved here hopefully is limited to this forum.

[ROCKMAN]

Cog - "...but Exxon is the one of the biggest oil companies who find and extract the oil...". But as the Rockman has so clearly explained XOM produces a relatively small amount of GHG by the finding and extraction of fossil fuels. Same holds true for all the other companies involved in the finding/extraction of fossil fuels. OTOH the folks in California generate by their burning of fossil fuel 800 BILLION POUNDS OF CO2 ANNUALLY. In fact the fossil fuel consumers in the US, by their burning of fossil fuels, PRODUCE 11.8 TRILLION POUNDS OF CO2 ANNUALLY. But bless their pea picking little hearts, the citizens of little old Vermont produces less then CO2 then any other state: 13 BILLION POUNDS ANNIALLY. Shame on you CA! LOL. And Wyoming that produces 12X the amount CA does per capita.

So again the same question that no one has answered: why aren't they going after the folks who actually generate so much more GHG the XOM? And actually if you want to sue the actual source of those fossil fuels the suite should be brought against all the mineral owners in the US: the oil/NG produced by XOM et al belongs to those individuals. If they didn't lease their mineral rights to the oil patch none of those fossil fuels would be produced by XOM et all and neither would those fossil fuel consumers be generating all that GHG. Of course that suite would have to include the US govt: by far the biggest single mineral owner a (including coal) in the US and thus the largest provider of fossil fuels to be converted into GHG. Which, oddly enough, would effectively be the same as suing all US citizens.

The Rockman still patiently awaits a answer. LOL

[Lore]

So again the same question that no one has answered: why aren't they going after the folks who actually generate so much more GHG the XOM? And actually if you want to sue the actual source of those fossil fuels the suite should be brought against all the mineral owners in the US: the oil/NG produced by XOM et al belongs to those individuals. If they didn't lease their mineral rights to the oil patch none of those fossil fuels would be produced by XOM et all and neither would those fossil fuel consumers be generating all that GHG. Of course that suite would have to include the US govt: by far the biggest single mineral owner a (including coal) in the US and thus the largest provider of fossil fuels to be converted into GHG. Which, oddly enough, would effectively be the same as suing all US citizens.

The Rockman still patiently awaits a answer. LOL

I believe I answered that question.

[GHung]

http://money.cnn.com/2015/11/05/news/ex ... -stack-dom

ExxonMobil is under investigation by the New York Attorney General for withholding information from both its shareholders and the public about the risks of climate change.

In a statement on Thursday, ExxonMobil confirmed that it has received a subpoena requesting documents and information pertaining to climate change.

In the statement, ExxonMobil (XOM) "unequivocally" rejected any accusations that it had hidden climate change research.

"ExxonMobil has included information about the business risk of climate change for many years in our 10-K, Corporate Citizenship Report and in other reports to shareholders," the statement said.

The oil and gas corporation, which recently posted poor earnings, said it has a "nearly 40-year history of climate research." ExxonMobil said the research was gathered through a collaboration with the U.S. Department of Energy, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and academics.

[dohboi]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/04/busin ... .html?_r=0

Gore Calls for Exxon Mobil Inquiry on Climate Change

[Plantagenet]

ExxonMobil is under investigation by the New York Attorney General for withholding information from both its shareholders and the public about the risks of climate change.

Does EXXON Have some information that isn't publicly available?

What is the secret info that EXXON has?

[GHung]

It's more that Exxon allegedly wasn't forthcoming with their shareholders; at least that's the buzz. Seems some folks think investors have a right to be informed about the consequences of using the products they sell; disclosure and all that. Not sure how many were complaining, if any.

[onlooker]

I think this investigation if nothing else sends the message that as a nation we will not tolerate anymore denialist jibberish on the firm and pretty much undisputed truth that climate is changing and humanity is too blame

[Cog]

The message it sends to me is that New York is the liberal cesspool it always has been. Bans on guns, bans on soft drinks and now the latest liberal mantra of hammering on companies providing a legal product to consumers. No surprise.

Do you really think that the New York's AG cares about Exxon's shareholders?

[onlooker]

Yes Cog, I am happy to live in this so called cesspool you dub New York. Yes we do like to ban things that harm humans. Someday, given the track we are on humans if their are any still remaining will look back and say what a cesspool of humanity lived in those times, no wonder they were responsible for the conditions we now confront. The message this sends me is that a small weak ray of light still shines amid the growing darkness. I expect growing vindictiveness in the coming years as consequences set in and all realize who is most responsible. The ignorant consumers are responsible for their ignorance but the elites and their institutions are responsible for lying enabling this ignorance. So who is most responsible and despicable in their behavior?

[Cid_Yama]

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

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

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

A year later, Black, a top technical expert in Exxon's Research & Engineering division, took an updated version of his presentation to a broader audience. He warned Exxon scientists and managers that independent researchers estimated a doubling of the carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration in the atmosphere would increase average global temperatures by 2 to 3 degrees Celsius (4 to 5 degrees Fahrenheit), and as much as 10 degrees Celsius (18 degrees Fahrenheit) at the poles. Rainfall might get heavier in some regions, and other places might turn to desert.

“Some countries would benefit but others would have their agricultural output reduced or destroyed,” Black said, in the written summary of his 1978 talk.

So they knew. Yet:

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

link


The Oil Industry, and Exxon in particular, is guilty of engaging in an enterprise they knew would lead to loss of property and life, and endanger the habitability of parts or the whole of the planet due to dangerous climate change.

The Oil industry is guilty of engaging in a decades-long conspiracy to purposely and fraudulently mislead the public about the dangers of greenhouse gasses released by the burning of fossil fuels, that could lead to dangerous climate change.

They also engaged in a conspiracy to launch a public relations campaign to counteract the growing body of scientific evidence showing greenhouse gasses were hazardous and could lead to dangerous climate change, while at the same time the Defendants' own internal scientific research confirmed the findings that the burning of fossil fuels could have adverse effects to global temperature, rainfall patterns and global crop yields. The object of this campaign was to continue in their enterprise and profits, and to avoid adverse liability judgments, federal laws restricting their enterprise and adverse publicity.

Thus, the RICO Act applies.

Any enterprise engaged in, that would knowingly endanger the public and lead to loss of property and life is a criminal enterprise.

Conspiracy to hide this fact is a criminal act.

Conspiracy to mislead and/or deceive for the purpose of profit or to avoid liability is a criminal act.

Conspiracy to influence Federal regulation of such activity is a criminal act.

Conspiracy to mislead shareholders with regards to potential liability is a criminal act.

They also misled shareholders with regards to their ability to monetize their known reserves, knowing they would eventually be stopped. Shareholders stand to lose billions. I'm sure they care.

[Sixstrings]

It's the "toughest climate crackdown yet:"

Exxon Probed by New York in Toughest U.S. Climate Crackdown Yet

The investigation is seeking information on whether the world’s biggest oil explorer lied to investors and the public for almost 40 years about the impact of climate change on profits, the person said. As a manufacturer of 10 million gallons of gasoline and other fuels every hour of every day, Exxon is one of the world’s largest sources of carbon-heavy energy. Environmental activists cheered New York’s action, calling for more agencies to join the probe.

Schneiderman “is leading the charge to further expose the hypocrisy of fossil fuel companies like Exxon Mobil and hold them accountable for denying climate change to the public and blocking necessary action for decades,” Greenpeace spokesman Rodrigo Estrada said
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/07/science/more-oil-companies-could-join-exxon-mobil-as-focus-of-climate-investigations.html?_r=0

Yep, the Inquisition mob is out there, the witchhunt has begun -- to hold to ACCOUNT those who DENY the Word of God -- *cough ahem* sorry I mean, CLIMATE CHANGE.

The tribunals will be set. Neighbor will testify against neighbor, brother against brother, WHO among YOU *denied* the good book and the word of the Lord almighty -- ahem sorry again, I mean climate change!

It won't matter if you got convinced of CC in recent years and are a recent convert to the Faith -- that's not good enough for them they still want to punish the converts for back before they converted; the Grand Inquisitors will have trials and tribunals and probes and dig back, 30 years and 40 years to find anyone who even USED to be a Denier -- to root out any trace of anti-climate change heresy.

Look folks -- Ben Carson is an idiot for denying basic science.

But these far left are just as crazy too except it's Mother Earth religion instead of 7th day adventism but make no mistake these far left are Al Gore book-thumping fundamentalists on a righteous mission and setting up inquisitions -- and this is an entirely IDEOLOGICAL inquisition that has no connection with law nor logic, whatsoever.

Look at this NYT article, it says prosecutors could wind up prosecuting Republican groups and think tanks, like ALEC and the Global Climate Coalition.

Companies are gong to get the book thrown at them, for GIVING money to Republican groups.

And the Republican groups are gonna get prosecuted too. Read that article, that's what it said, and if you read my posts on this Exxon thing then you know I warned from the very start -- and I knew -- that at root this was a "prosecute Republican groups" thing, essentially.

And by the way, it's kind of like how the IRS was going after tea party groups right?

More Oil Companies Could Join Exxon Mobil as Focus of Climate Investigations

“Exxon Mobil is not alone,” said Stephen Zamora, a professor at the University of Houston Law Center. “This is not likely to be an isolated matter.”

Energy experts said prosecutors may decide to investigate companies that chose to fund or join organizations that questioned climate science or policies designed to address the problem, such as the Global Climate Coalition and the American Legislative Exchange Council, to see if discrepancies exist between the companies’ public and private statements.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/07/science/more-oil-companies-could-join-exxon-mobil-as-focus-of-climate-investigations.html?_r=0

I'm not a big fan of these Republican groups but looks folks, right is right and wrong is wrong and you can't go after Republicans like it's a witchhunt just because Democrats have majority.

(I don't like that group ALEC at all, it's really tempting to just be on the bandwagon and say "yeah, PROSECUTE those horrible Republican think tanks, yeah man! And that society is better off, without them. But look folks there's a freedom of speech principle here, and a principle about political prosecution.)

[onlooker]

Six, your talking alot of hogwash here. First of all it is not a partisan thing, it is something that is and will affect adversely (starvation) all human beings regardless of party, sex, race, religion etc. Second, it is not an ideological inquisition witch hunt. For God's sake man this is precisely about SCIENCE. At this late stage for you and anyone to bring up partisan-ideological stances is plain ignorant/deceitful. Climate change is here and it is going to get worse. For once, can all this division between humans cease and at least if their is a chance to avert the worse, lets all do it. Your comments Six are NOT helpful to accomplish this.

[dohboi]

It's so sweat to see the mighty 6S running to the aid of poor little put-upon Exxon (wealthiest corporation since money was invented)!

[GHung]

Six said; And the Republican groups are gonna get prosecuted too.

Yeah, Six, I would love to see James Inhofe in a big bird cage, wearing a dunce cap, hung up in the corner of Congress sucking his thumb, drooling and blabbering.

When you're guilty of decades of extreme denial and abuses, this is generally what you get; heads get cut off.

[Sixstrings]

Six, your talking alot of hogwash here. First of all it is not a partisan thing,

How can you say it's not political when this thing has jumped so fast from just "big tobacco" to now some talk about prosecuting Republican think tanks. That's what the NYT article says:

"Energy experts said prosecutors may decide to investigate companies that chose to fund or join organizations that questioned climate science or policies designed to address the problem, such as the Global Climate Coalition and the American Legislative Exchange Council."

ALEC is a major bigtime Republican group, how is this not political if they want to prosecute ALEC? And then who is next? How far will the probes and inquisitors go?

it is something that is and will affect adversely (starvation) all human beings regardless of party, sex, race, religion etc. Second, it is not an ideological inquisition witch hunt. For God's sake man this is precisely about SCIENCE.

No onlooker, it's about POLICY. SCIENCE just IS. POLICY is what you do about things.

It's not right to prosecute groups that are against your group's policy ideas. Nor to prosecute Exxon -- from 40 years ago -- because you think Exxon made it difficult to enact your policy ideas.

That's not against the law.

ALEC isn't against the law, just because they have Republican ideas.

I don't like ALEC and some of these Republican political groups either, that are all pro industry and thick in with Republicans, but the way to go about that isn't by prosecuting them.

[Sixstrings]

It's so sweat to see the mighty 6S running to the aid of poor little put-upon Exxon (wealthiest corporation since money was invented)!

But here's my problem dohboi, the fact is that we have free speech and the 1st amendment in the US and not even Russia Today and China Radio are illegal, if Americans want to fund those.

But read this:

"Energy experts said prosecutors may decide to investigate companies that chose to fund or join organizations that questioned climate science or policies designed to address the problem, such as the Global Climate Coalition and the American Legislative Exchange Council."

They're acting like its AGAINST THE LAW TO GIVE MONEY OR OTHERWISE "SUPPORT" REPUBLICAN GROUPS.

There's no law against that, I'm sorry.

The thing is just so NUTS.

They may as well bring a RICO criminal conspiracy case against the Republican National Committee, except for the minor detail that having climate change policy doubts and questions IS NOT AGAINST THE LAW.

There IS NO LAW against denying or having doubts or questions about climate change science.

There's no law against Ben Carson thinking Joseph in the Bible built the pyramids to store grain, either. Society can call him out and have a laugh about it and have a free speech debate -- but NOT prosecute him or those that "choose to support him."