[Subjectivist]

The corporation known as Exxon-Mobile is big in America, but compared to Saudi Aramaco or almost every national oil company it's not that significant. If you want to sue an oil organization for global warming you need to go after OPEC and Gazprom and so on that control many times the oil flow that Exxon sells.

[dohboi]

Yeah, free speech.

But it's still illegal to yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater if there is not fire.

Language that misleads in such a way as to cause massive harm, in all sorts of circumstances, is not only deeply immoral, but also in many cases illegal.

The speech that you should be using your enormous super powers to protect is that if climate scientists who are regularly threatened with death and threat to family just for doing their science.

I personally think 'gag orders' and contracts that limit speech should generally be illegal.

[GHung]

Six said; "If you do this to Republicans today, they could prosecute your groups tomorrow..."

Nonsense. Examples are made all the time, which generally means going after the biggest and worst offenders. That's how political policy changes are validated. Prosecute a couple of banks or fund managers, then implement policy changes. That didn't mean Fast Billy's Quick Mortgage down on Main Street got prosecuted for passing on awful sub-prime loans. The vast majority of those who helped rescind Glass-Stegall, or took advantage of the opportunities that came available, weren't prosecuted, and most of those involved in producing and selling tobacco products weren't hauled in front of congressional committees. Do you know any individual tobacco farmers who went to court for growing tobacco or voicing support for big tobacco? Many got subsidies to grow something else; still are.

Indeed, Glass-Stegall is still history, and people can still use tobacco products, the same way that we'll still be using fossil fuels. At some point, considering the level of bought-and-paid-for denial, someone had to put a big foot in the climate change door. Whether or not Exxon considered that they were setting themselves up for this sort of thing doesn't matter. They did, and will have to explain themselves.

[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)!

And by the way, the rest of the oil industry -- other than exxon -- have all been posting major losses like a billion to five billion dollars. Chevron, Shell, all of them. Due to the crash in oil prices and then they had to cancel canadian tar sands projects and that cost a lot of money.

And the industry in the Dakotas is hurting, too. Profits are all way down, into losses.

Now you all want to prosecute them for "climate change denial" and for "supporting or joining political organizations?" (as if that were even illegal to start with)

Having said all the above -- yeah, it is ironic, I'm defending poor bullied Exxon and ALEC of all things.

But I'll tell ya something dohboi, I would hope the relevant judges would think as I do. And are fair about things, use law and logic and principle. Exxon and Horrible Republican Groups prosecuted today, could mean LEFT WING groups and companies that "support" them, could be prosecuted by Republicans in the future.

This is why we have laws and judges and rule of law, otherwise it's just political prosecutions and one group having inquisitions on another group.

Hopefully the whole thing works out for the best -- that this New York Attorney general nonsense never even makes it to a court of law and if it does, it gets thrown out by a logical objective judge. But then, after so much harassment, the oil companies won't ever fund climate denial groups either. So that would work out, a little bullying from the left but just so it doesn't go too far into a travesty of law and justice.

I don't like ALEC but come on folks, how can you prosecute Republicans for being pro industry? That's an oxymoron, they're the pro industry party, it's just "what they do." And the reverse could be true one day, Republicans could prosecute leftist groups just because they are leftist -- even though being leftists is just "what they do" and shouldn't be illegal. We're supposed to have free speech and free assembly, that's in the Constitution.

This climate change prosecution thing, it's like McCarthy and the communism probes.

"Are you, or have you ever been, a climate science doubter or climate change policy opponent?

Have you ever given money or supported groups connected to the Republican Party and connected to Climate Change Denial? And don't claim that's legal, this Inquisition of Grand Inquisitors doesn't care about the law, answer the question, are you or have you ever been a Denier?

Have you sir, ever had questions about the entirety of climate science and solar cycles? If you have, then this is heresy against the Faith, to question the Good Book and the prophet Al Gore."

P.S. As I have posted many, MANY times, Republicans do need to change gears and just get a Republican message on climate change and support green energy and figure out a capitalist pro industry take on it rather than leftist carbon taxes and banker cap and trade.

BUT -- the left just can't go too far into what's essentially prosecuting Republicans, to FORCE them to change, that really is like McCarthyism where there's an inquisition and honestly it flies in the face of free speech and free assembly and is trying to prosecute people just for views when that's not even illegal to start with, that's all I'm sayin' here.

[GHung]

Subjectivist said; "If you want to sue an oil organization for global warming you need to go after OPEC and Gazprom and so on that control many times the oil flow that Exxon sells."

Legally, this isn't about suing an oil organization for global warming. It's about knowingly misleading shareholders and the public about the negative consequences of using the products you produce. Not sure if you guys are too dumb to know the difference, or if you are being intentionally misleading, just as Exxon allegedly was.

[GHung]

Six said; "This climate change prosecution thing, it's like McCarthy and the communism probes."

No it's not, no matter how many times you repeat it. Being a communist is entirely legal. Misleading shareholders and customers about your products and possible liabilities isn't. You can assign all sorts of ulterior motives to this, and some may be valid, but the courts generally don't care. Exxon could well prevail in this, but it'll be well established at that point just how much bullshit they were feeding the public.

[Sixstrings]

Being a communist is entirely legal.

AND DENYING AGW IS LEGAL TOO! AND OPPOSING CLIMATE CHANGE POLICY AGENDA, IS LEGAL!

Speaking for myself -- there are some HONEST DOUBTS about the entirety of climate science standard line, specifically things like what the sun is doing and solar cycles.

The problem here is that the Far Left is just acting like everyone that has doubts is being disingenuous and really knows "the truth," but that's not the case. People have some honest doubts.

MOREOVER -- ***Science is ALL ABOUT being open to questions. Science is never supposed to be protected faith dogma that cannot be questioned, ask any scientist and he'll tell you that, it's the foundation of the scientific method. Question, question, question, test and test, never say there can't be more questions.***

Scientists aren't the bad guy here, scientists have nothing to do with policy.

GREENPEACE is a policy group. That is using science as their Bible, and saying you can't deny Science so now you can't deny our policy ideas either.

I'm sorry guys, you can't outlaw climate change doubts, I know you want to but you can't.

Misleading shareholders and customers about your products and possible liabilities isn't. You can assign all sorts of ulterior motives to this, and some may be valid, but the courts generally don't care. Exxon could well prevail in this, but it'll be well established at that point just how much bullshit they were feeding the public.

Their legal basis for this is so flimsy, lol.

AS IF LEFTIST PROSECUTORS ARE ON THE SIDE OF STOCK SHAREHOLDERS and are crusaders for corporate profits and shareholders, oh puh-lease.

Exxon did well for its shareholders, you can't prosecute them for not doing the opposite and tanking their business and stock price in 1980 and deciding to become climate change action activists instead of an oil drilling company.

P.S. just to state again, I'm not against you guys on fundamentals, I just still have these doubts but at least I have evolved to a point where the doubts don't even matter anymore and let's just talk about what policy is a good idea regardless of the truth of what's really going on with solar cycles.

*The policy should be supporting green energy and just transitioning from fossil fuels* and actually the oil companies know that as well, and the smart ones are diversifying to the new green energy.

BUT -- I cannot stand by and just say this is okay, these climate change denier prosecutions, it's just so ludicrous and A TRAVESTY OF LOGIC and reason, like you can blame Exxon or even all the oil companies, for planetary climate. It's ridiculous.

[GHung]

Shout all you want, Six. You have no legal argument whatsoever.

[Sixstrings]

Here's what's ironic.. EVEN ***IF*** FUNDING ALEC AND REPUBLICAN GROUPS AND BEING A BIG HUGE CLIMATE DENIER WERE ILLEGAL.. which it isn't.. but even it it were..

There is still no case against Exxon.

There is NO "big tobacco" case against them, there just isn't.

First of all you actually can't hold Exxon responsible for oil as a product -- oil is a commodity like wood, it has fundamental properties like wood does, and Exxon's got nothing to do with that -- you can't sue Exxon over oil any more than you can sue a lumberjack for not warning about the dangers of wood, or sue a corn farmer in Iowa and blame him for corn-syrup caused diabetes in his customers.

But anyhow, even if "oil" were a manufactured product the way cigarettes are and let's say Exxon is responsible for the fundamental properties of oil, then there's still no case.

BECAUSE EXXON DIDN'T DO FAKE RESEARCH, AND THEY SIMPLY PUBLISHED ALL THEIR FINDINGS INTO THE PEER REVIEWED PUBLIC DOMAIN.

So where's the case, against them?

Exxon, Peabody investigated over climate change claims

Exxon spokesman Scott Silvestri said the company has received the subpoena and rejects allegations in media reports that it suppressed research. Silvestri said that for years, Exxon has provided shareholders information about the business risks of climate change.

He cited "ExxonMobil's nearly 40-year history of climate research that was conducted publicly in conjunction with the Department of Energy, academics and the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change."

"ExxonMobil recognizes that climate risks are real and responsible actions are warranted," Vice President Ken Cohen told reporters in a conference call late Thursday.

He said scientists have publicly issued nearly 150 papers and obtained nearly 300 patents for technological advances in cutting emissions.

"Beginning in the last decade, we've informed shareholders and investors on our perception of the business risks associated with climate change through regulatory filings, our annual corporate citizenship report and in other reports to shareholders," Cohen said.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/11/06/exxon-peabody-investigated-over-climate-change-claims/

Also per that foxnews article, it's not just Exxon but "Peabody OIl" is being investigated too. I've never heard of them before, but I guess the planet is all their fault.

[GHung]

I'm sure that, if the investigation warrants it, this will all come out in court. Scares you? Apparently. It's a sad state of affairs when due process scares the shit out of adults.

Exxon surely has some of the best lawyers in the world. They don't need some bozo commenting on PO.com defending their position.

[ROCKMAN]

I agree with you Ghung: Big headlines today but nothing either way will be finalized for years...if then.

But again back to the obvious: XOM et al produce oil. If one wants to hang on to the tobacco angle then it should have been the tobacco farmers they went after. After all they and the oil patch only produces the base product. Virtually no one consumes oil or tobacco plants: they consume refinery products and cigarretes. OTOH they could go after the refiners since they are the ones producing the products that produce GHG when consumed. OTOOH they don't sell to the public: the folks who own the gas stations do. Hmm...that logic would lead to going after the stores that sold the cigarrettes and not the folks that made them...just as the refineries made the motor fuels and didn't sell it directly to the consumers. So exactly where in the long line of the process do you hang the responsibity?

But lets not forget the obvious: despite the near universal acceptance that smoking causes illnesses the govt still allows the sales of cigarrettes in the country. Not only that but the US is thd largest exporter of those death sticks...just as it is also the largest exporter of refinery products.

Thus the obvious PRECIDENCE: Little stickers on those ExxonMobil gas pumps: Warning: the US government has determined that consuming motor fuels will cause serious environmental issues. Maybe they could post a picture of a drowning polar bear...similar to posting pictures of a cancerous lung.

[Plantagenet]

Thus the obvious: Little stickers on those ExxonMobil gas pumps: Warning: the US government has determined that consuming motor fuels will cause serious environmental issues. Maybe they could post a picture of a drowning polar bear...similar to posting pictures of a cancerous lung.

Yup.

Thats exactly what I said about a week ago in this same thread. This to be yet another example of that old saying: Great Minds Think Alike

Lets put warning labels on the gas pumps. To make it even more powerful put a picture of a fuzzy baby mammal on the sticker. It won't stop people from using gasoline and changing the climate, but at least we can pretend we tried.

[Lore]

But again back to the obvious: XOM et al produce oil. If one wants to hang on to the tobacco angle then it should have been the tobacco farmers they went after. After all they and the oil patch only produces the base product. Virtually no one consumes oil or tobacco plants: they consume refinery products and cigarretes. OTOH they could go after the refiners since they are the ones producing the products that produce GHG when consumed. OTOOH they don't sell to the public: the folks who own the gas stations do. Hmm...that logic would lead to going after the stores that sold the cigarrettes and not the folks that made them...just as the refineries made the motor fuels and didn't sell it directly to the consumers. So exactly where in the long line of the process do you hang the responsibity?

But lets not forget the obvious: despite the near universal acceptance that smoking causes illnesses the govt still allows the sales of cigarrettes in the country. Not only that but the US is thd largest exporter of those death sticks...just as it is also the largest exporter of refinery products.

Thus the obvious PRECIDENCE: Little stickers on those ExxonMobil gas pumps: Warning: the US government has determined that consuming motor fuels will cause serious environmental issues. Maybe they could post a picture of a drowning polar bear...similar to posting pictures of a cancerous lung.

There wouldn't be a market for tobacco plants if there were no cigarette manufacturers. I think that is pretty obvious.

Making oil more expensive less attractive is already having its effects. As I pointed out before, just as it has for smoking and in the case of oil, you have alternatives to turn to.

[GHung]

Rock; I'm sure the climate lobby has done its best to move this thing along. Their agenda, and just business. If that was your agenda, would you go after a thousand little guys, or go after a big guy who set themselves up for this kind of attack? Again, just business.

When my brother and I were building houses, one of our clients got into a dispute with another couple who were building a home up the road and upstream. Those folks said our operation was messing the road up, and after we tried to work with them, they still were coming after our client. I pointed out to our client that their stream was getting really muddy every time it rained. We snuck up there one Sunday and found out they didn't have the required silt dams and setbacks, all that, even though they had submitted the paperwork, got permits, etc. (turns out an inspector was a close friend of the other builder). So after we tried to work with these folks, they got a visit from the State Soil and Water people,, and some big fines. They had the choice of showing the inspector didn't do his job and being closed down for weeks, or pay up. More than one way to skin an asshole.

Point being, if Exxon set itself up for an attack from the climate folks, via the courts, tough shitski. I certainly don't expect the NYAG to look the other way, considering the evidence presented so far. Where it'll lead, who knows? If they deceived their investors (or attempted to), I expect them to be treated like any other corporation once someone makes a stink about it.

All the other extraneous stuff folks are bringing up here is legally irrelevant to this case, just as was the other builder's claim to the Soil and Water people that "they're just pissed off at us about making them fix the road". The Soil and Water folks didn't care about that. Not at all. They also didn't run around the county looking at every job site for violations. They closed the case and went back,, wherever they go.

[Sixstrings]

If one wants to hang on to the tobacco angle then it should have been the tobacco farmers they went after. After all they and the oil patch only produces the base product. Virtually no one consumes oil or tobacco plants: they consume refinery products and cigarretes. OTOH they could go after the refiners since they are the ones producing the products that produce GHG when consumed. OTOOH they don't sell to the public: the folks who own the gas stations do. Hmm...that logic would lead to going after the stores that sold the cigarrettes and not the folks that made them...just as the refineries made the motor fuels and didn't sell it directly to the consumers. So exactly where in the long line of the process do you hang the responsibity?

In that analogy, I think it's fair to say cigarette manufacturers were primarily responsible.

But yeah know what Rock -- actually -- the big tobacco settlements weren't technically legally right either, in my opinion. Government can make a product ILLEGAL or it can sin tax it to a prohibitive cost, but it can't fault a company because some element is just fundamentally unsafe no matter what you do with it.

It can't fault a company because society accepted a thing for decades before, and then suddenly it doesn't accept it now so let's just pick on the company because we can't ever pass a law about it.

It's such a huge logic problem.. which is why it's legally unsound..

One could say this about ANYTHING.. like, cars cause x number of deaths and injury no matter how they are made or what you do, they still cause damage. So one could then conclude that cars are fundamentally an unsafe product and automakers should know that and maybe if society turns against cars, we'll just have a class action on the autos and seize their assets.

Or, like how EVERYTHING causes cancer. Including hot dogs, it turns out.

If we start in with paying out reparations for everything, then it just never ends, with the left. Next would be a "big sugar" class action. And after all that's done we'll have to drink diet coke and then it turns out that aspartame causes cancer, so we'd have to have a "big fake sugar" class action over the cancer. If it ain't diabetes, it's cancer, if it ain't one thing it's another.

But lets not forget the obvious: despite the near universal acceptance that smoking causes illnesses the govt still allows the sales of cigarrettes in the country. Not only that but the US is thd largest exporter of those death sticks...just as it is also the largest exporter of refinery products.

Right. But government could never get any laws passed about tobacco.

BUT.. they could win in court.. and do class action instead. Ergo, they'll do the same thing to advance other things on the Democratic Party agenda that cannot pass otherwise by votes.

So that's my concern here. LOOK AT THE GUN ISSUE, they want a "big guns" law to allow factories to be sued because someone misuses a gun -- when just logically, it's not the factory's fault.

But the Left doesn't care about logic, to them ends justify the means. If they can't get climate stuff and gun regs passed with votes, they'll make the change in a backdoor way instead, with the courts.

Thus the obvious PRECIDENCE: Little stickers on those ExxonMobil gas pumps: Warning: the US government has determined that consuming motor fuels will cause serious environmental issues. Maybe they could post a picture of a drowning polar bear...similar to posting pictures of a cancerous lung.

Exactly, that would be the logically straightforward way to do it.

But they can't be so open about it like that, it would never pass. And they can't get actual carbon taxes passed either. But maybe what they CAN do, is use the courts -- rather than a carbon tax, do a class action on big oil and force them to make a settlement with the government's prosecutors.

It could wind up hurting the economy.

Companies could become too scared to do anything, at all, if everything can be "big tobaccoed."

Think about it -- like how even the Obama admin's own justice department is now talking about the "fergusson effect," that crime is skyrocketing because police have become afraid to do anything.

The same could happen in the business community, and then we're into a socialist situation like in "Atlas Shrugged" with business scared to do business because they'll have to wind up paying reparations to somebody.

[Sixstrings]

Rock; I'm sure the climate lobby has done its best to move this thing along. Their agenda, and just business. If that was your agenda, would you go after a thousand little guys, or go after a big guy who set themselves up for this kind of attack? Again, just business.

But justice is supposed to be blind and the law is the law, you don't just pick on the rich guy just because he has the money while ignoring everyone else that's doing the same thing.

More than one way to skin an asshole.

So in other words, "the ends justify the means."

Point being, if Exxon set itself up for an attack from the climate folks, via the courts, tough shitski.

The same could be said for all 150 million Republicans in this country, that they all "set themselves up for attack from the climate folks."

This is bullying going on, from the far left.

But maybe ends do justify the means.. and maybe it will finally change industry and the Republican Party, that they must be more ecological now, or else they're gonna get sent to the climate denier jails.

So I get that, maybe you're right, and ends justify means -- big tobacco class action by the federal and state govts was wrong, legally (my opinion), but it's still good if fewer people smoke and that the cigs cost more.

Not sure I want to pay $7 a gallon for gas, though.

Good post ghung, you make good points. So that's why I say that this is bullying but okay maybe it will work out for the best, and as long as it doesn't get too far left crazy or go too far.

[Cog]

The climate change gurus know they can't actually stop the use of oil. What this amounts to is a shakedown of a big corporation to fund whatever failed programs that Congress will not approve of.

Ideally a judge will toss this and give punitive damages and lawyer fees to Exxon to punish New York State for filing a frivolous lawsuit.

[Plantagenet]

Think about it -- like how even the Obama admin's own justice department is now talking about the "fergusson effect," that crime is skyrocketing because police have become afraid to do anything.

The same could happen in the business community, and then we're into a socialist situation like in "Atlas Shrugged" with business scared to do business because they'll have to wind up paying reparations to somebody.

Yup. I think you are right.

Ferguson is very good example. The O administration sent multiple representatives to the funeral of the violent thug who was caught on video robbing a store and attacking the store owner minutes before he attacked the police officer----and then the O administration sent the FBI---to investigate the police officer who had been fired for defending himself from the thug.

No wonder police are intimidated. What police officer wants to lose his job and be investigated by the FBI for attempting to arrest a violent criminal?

If the O administration can intimidate the police into not doing their jobs---then they can intimidate anyone and everyone.

No doubt EXXON is a climate criminal. But its not like anyone else has stopped emitting carbon----start with Obama and his jet set golfing vacations. I hate to think how many cross country trips Obama has made in air force one to play golf in Palm Springs or to go on yet another vacation. And somehow O always forgets the dog and so the dog is brought along later ---- of course in another jet assigned to make the trip just for the dog and the intern who's been assigned to take the dog on its walks.

Obama's personal carbon footprint must the be size of Uranus.

SHEESH!

[onlooker]

You guys are so funny. You wish to defend the big bad companies against the small man. Your lucky you are not living in some poor country right now racked by violence, the drug plague, crime, out of control corruption, bad environment, lack of jobs but you get the picture. Or better yet how bout in Detroit right now. Your retorts are as shallow as your whole panorama. You still do not understand that potent corporations, governments, banks, political parties do not have your best interests in mind. That is why the rich are building high priced fancy bunkers to ride out the collapse that surely one day soon will come. Guess what your NOT invited inside their fortified bunker.

[Sixstrings]

The climate change gurus know they can't actually stop the use of oil. What this amounts to is a shakedown of a big corporation to fund whatever failed programs that Congress will not approve of.

Ideally a judge will toss this and give punitive damages and lawyer fees to Exxon to punish New York State for filing a frivolous lawsuit.

EXACTLY. Correct. Goodness Cog, I'm not even a Republican, here you take up this banner.

This is at the very essence of socialism versus capitalism and the left using the courts to do things that people won't vote for otherwise.

It's the very core of what Republicans are about, in opposition to.. the whole too much regulation thing and everyone can sue you if you try to open a business and then it's so expensive for insurance and so much liability that folk can't afford to open a business anymore, or stay in business.

It's about government politicians just wanting to blame the private sector for all of society's ill, but never blaming themselves -- government -- the politicians -- for failing. When it's government that's ultimately responsible for such grand things like "the planet." Not Exxon corp.

It's the whole "lets pay everyone reparations" thing, that comes from the Left.. from slavery reparations to native americans, then it applies to big tobacco, then it's big oil, then it will be big sugar, then a class action on fast food chains to blame them for fat people.

It's about the philosophical divide, between personal responsibility versus blaming others.

And my opinion is just that there is a sliding scale to that, big business and the rich are to blame for some things, but NOT EVERYTHING. You can't pin "the planet" on them, that's going too far.