Exxon Stands Up to the Green Bullies


Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Exxon Mobile has courageously rejected suggestions that it should include the impact of the Paris Accord on its business model, in its financial disclosures to shareholders, by dismissing the possibility of meaningful global action to curb CO2 emissions.

ExxonMobil has challenged a shareholder resolution that calls for the company to show how its business will be affected by the global commitment to dramatically slow global warming.

The resolution—filed by the New York State comptroller’s office and four co-filers—also seeks an explanation of how Exxon will address those impacts. Exxon notified the Securities and Exchange Commission that it wants to block a vote on the proposal at its annual meeting in May. The fossil fuel giant argued that it’s unlikely that strict emissions restrictions will be imposed to meet the goal of holding global warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius that world governments agreed to in last year’s Paris climate accord.

By challenging the resolution, Exxon positioned itself as an outlier in the oil industry’s growing acceptance of the consequences of burning fossil fuels and the urgency to halt global warming, some industry analysts said. The SEC recently denied a request by AES Corp., a generating company in Virginia, to block a similar shareholder resolution.

“It’s a little bit like a toddler putting their fingers in their ears and saying if I can’t hear you then what you’re saying isn’t true,” said Shanna Cleveland, manager of the Carbon Asset Risk Initiative at the nonprofit sustainability advocacy group Ceres. Exxon’s position signals that while nearly 200 countries around the world agreed to the Paris accord, Exxon remains on the sidelines, she said.

Read more: http://insideclimatenews.org/news/24022016/exxon-continues-resist-shareholder-calls-company-address-climate-change

The bullying sometimes works; AES corp, referenced in the quote above, as a company which complies with green demands, included the following statement in its most recent annual report;

Regulators, politicians, non-governmental organizations and other private parties have expressed concern about greenhouse gas, or GHG, emissions and the potential risks associated with climate change and are taking actions which could have a material adverse impact on our consolidated results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

As discussed in Item 1.— Business , at the international, federal and various regional and state levels, rules are in effect and policies are under development to regulate GHG emissions, thereby effectively putting a cost on such emissions in order to create financial incentives to reduce them. In 2015 , the Company’s subsidiaries operated businesses which had total CO 2 emissions of approximately 67.6 million metric tonnes, approximately 27.4 million of which were emitted by businesses located in the U.S. (both figures ownership adjusted). The Company uses CO 2 emission estimation methodologies supported by “The Greenhouse Gas Protocol” reporting standard on GHG emissions. For existing power generation plants, CO 2 emissions data are either obtained directly from plant continuous emission monitoring systems or calculated from actual fuel heat inputs and fuel type CO 2 emission factors. The estimated annual CO 2 emissions from fossil fuel electric power generation facilities of the Company’s subsidiaries that are in construction or development and have received the necessary air permits for commercial operations are approximately 7.8 million metric tonnes (ownership adjusted). This overall estimate is based on a number of projections and assumptions which may prove to be incorrect, such as the forecasted dispatch, anticipated plant efficiency, fuel type, CO 2 emissions rates and our subsidiaries’ achieving completion of such construction and development projects. However, it is certain that the projects under construction or development when completed will increase emissions of our portfolio and therefore could increase the risks associated with regulation of GHG emissions. Because there is significant uncertainty regarding these estimates, actual emissions from these projects under construction or development may vary substantially from these estimates.

The non-utility, generation subsidiaries of the Company often seek to pass on any costs arising from CO 2 emissions to contract counterparts, but there can be no assurance that such subsidiaries of the Company will effectively pass such costs onto the contract counterparties or that the cost and burden associated with any dispute over which party bears such costs would not be burdensome and costly to the relevant subsidiaries of the Company. The utility subsidiaries of the Company may seek to pass on any costs arising from CO 2 emissions to customers, but there can be no assurance that such subsidiaries of the Company will effectively pass such costs to the customers, or that they will be able to fully or timely recover such costs.

Foreign, federal, state or regional regulation of GHG emissions could have a material adverse impact on the Company’s financial performance. The actual impact on the Company’s financial performance and the financial performance of the Company’s subsidiaries will depend on a number of factors, including among others, the degree and timing of GHG emissions reductions required under any such legislation or regulation, the cost of emissions reduction equipment and the price and availability of offsets, the extent to which market based compliance options are available, the extent to which our subsidiaries would be entitled to receive GHG emissions allowances without having to purchase them in an auction or on the open market and the impact of such legislation or regulation on the ability of our subsidiaries to recover costs incurred through rate increases or otherwise. As a result of these factors, our cost of compliance could be substantial and could have a material adverse impact on our results of operations.

Read more: Yahoo Finance

NOTE – this is NOT the complete AES statement on climate risk, it is just the part I found interesting.

If a company complies with green bullying, they seem to end up spending ridiculous amounts of management time and effort producing environmental financial impact reports. If they fight the bullies, they risk spending ridiculous amounts of management time and effort, challenging government backed climate zealots in the courts. Either way, companies lose – the only question is by how much.

I applaud Exxon’s brave decision to fight this lunacy; but on a macroeconomic level, you have to wonder how much harm this utter waste of corporate time and effort is doing to the US economy, to the reputation of the USA as a good place to invest, and to US jobs growth.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
February 27, 2016 6:08 am

Mobil vs Mobile in word two
Beyond that – the Company operates according to laws and will defend technical positions.

February 27, 2016 6:20 am

How this pans out will depend a lot on who our next president is.

Rob Morrow
Reply to  SMC
February 27, 2016 6:55 am

No doubt Hillary or Bernie would zealously continue Obama’s legacy of nonsense about America leading the world on fighting climate change. The EU has been sabotaging their economy for over a decade with the ETS while the U.S. lags behind with no binding regulation.

Reply to  Rob Morrow
February 27, 2016 9:51 am

But they might be persuaded to pursue Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors. Making them on assembly lines like Boeings would mean a huge source of jobs and provide cheap energy for infrastructure. If it takes CO2 scare tactics to bring about LFTRs, I say fine.

Reply to  Rob Morrow
February 27, 2016 4:28 pm

Thorium Reactors (sic) – the 100 mpg carburetor of the 21st century.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Rob Morrow
February 27, 2016 4:34 pm

February 27, 2016 at 9:51 am
“If it takes CO2 scare tactics to bring about LFTRs, I say fine.”
Lies and scare tactics are no one’s friends, even if a good thing or two could happen. David, resist the large and epidemic amorality of this terrible era of ours. The end game won’t produce any good.

Loren Wilson
Reply to  Rob Morrow
February 27, 2016 5:45 pm

The greens won’t ever embrace nuclear energy. They are against anyone having a good standard of living.

Reply to  Rob Morrow
February 29, 2016 1:34 pm

Gary Pearse
+ lots.

Tom Halla
Reply to  Auto
February 29, 2016 1:37 pm

Continued regulation is why one should not vote Democratic unless one has accepted CAGW. Most of what Obama has proposed is not yet in effect yet, and can mostly be reversed.
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 3:34 PM, Watts Up With That? wrote:
> Auto commented: “Gary Pearse + lots. Auto” >

Reply to  SMC
February 27, 2016 8:49 am

Since Trump’s run began gathering momentum, I’ve noticed its suddenly much, MUCH more “possible” to publicly question AGW. More skeptics are speaking out, and Exxon cannot have failed to notice what percentage of their stockholders are not AGW “true believers.” This IS a courageous move by them, and I hope it will set an example for other companies to resist the non-problem of a failed hypothesis. They should CALL it such, out loud in the press.

Tom Halla
Reply to  Goldrider
February 27, 2016 8:55 am

Actually, everyone except Kasich (and I am unsure about him) is publicly opposed to AGW policy as currently practiced. Trump and Cruz are the noisiest about their opposition, but Rubio and Carson are on record in opposition.

Reply to  Goldrider
February 27, 2016 6:19 pm

I notice this too. I’m also watching money flow more closely for signs of exodus from green energy scams but as of now they seem buoyed by the subsidy extension of 5 years that US Congress gave. Lots of new contracts in the pipeline esp for solar.
I also see that Japan is going all in on fossils, namely coal.
Splintering is occurring.

Reply to  Goldrider
February 28, 2016 7:51 am

Specifically what makes it courageous? They are resisting something that would have an adverse impact on their future business. Pragmatic? Yes. Courageous? Not so much.

Reply to  Goldrider
February 29, 2016 12:02 am

Chris, Most other oil majors (with the exception of Chevron) have joined the gullible warming chorus line precisely because it is good for business (demonise cheap coal = sell more gas; because everyone capable of rational thought understands that windmills and mirrors aren’t alternative energies, unless one resides in an alternative reality). So from that point of view ExxonMobil is doing and saying what is correct rather than what is politically correct or even what is good for business in the foreseeable future, they are also the only oil major not speaking with a forked tongue and pretending to wring their hands about gullible warming and for that (and being the only oil company with the minerals to do as much) they are to be applauded.
Take a look at some of the statements being made by, particularly european, oil majors and hear them talk about how gullible warming is the greatest challenge to humanity evah, and how with their ‘experience’ of major projects, they are actually part of the ‘solution’, blah, blah, blah. It always end with the same brilliant strategy to put a ‘price’ on carbon (dioxide) and encourage the greater use of gas (which they sell) as part of an energy transformation. Further down the track they’ll imagine CCS and offshore wind, which they’re meant to be well positioned to deliver, but only if the political climate is right (e.g. the subsidies are there for the picking). All smells like what it is, the only two who aren’t playing the game (the only two who aren’t complete hypocrites) are ExxonMobil and Chevron.

Reply to  Goldrider
February 29, 2016 8:20 am

Erny72, what is your evidence that the other oil majors do not believe that AGW is real? If they believe it is real, and that we need to make a slow transition away from fossil fuels – first, away from coal, then away from gasoline, then away from natural gas, then their statements are not hypocritical at all.

Tom Halla
February 27, 2016 6:22 am

One cannot underestimate the essentilal nihilism of the green blob. Anything that works, or looks like it will work, is opposed by the avid greens. Cheap, abundant energy is like giving an idiot child a machine gun, remember, so the energy industry is evil.

Reply to  Tom Halla
February 27, 2016 8:24 am

It is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys. (H/T P.J. O’Rourke)

Reply to  markstoval
February 27, 2016 4:17 pm

There are actually three fluids of which teenage boys should be wary:
1. Gasoline
2. Alcohol
3. Perfume.
The longer a boy holds out, the better chance he has of succeeding.

Stanislav Jakuba
February 27, 2016 6:22 am

I wonder if this writing and graphs might be of interest to Watts Up …. Please let me know. Stan Jakuba, MIT ’70 43 Westbrook Rd West Hartford CT 06107
On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 9:02 AM, Watts Up With That? wrote:
> Eric Worrall posted: ” Guest essay by Eric Worrall Exxon Mobile has > courageously rejected suggestions that it should include the impact of the > Paris Accord on its business model, in its financial disclosures to > shareholders, by dismissing the possibility of meaningful gl” >

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Muminabad
February 27, 2016 6:27 am

Exxon is placing a bet: that they will not have to worry about internalising the CAGW meme into their corporate ethic. In other words, it is an external phenomenon that has to be managed like other risks. The wisdom is that the only way green agenda people can force Exxon to internalise the whole kit and caboodle would be to buy shares and vote them. As the green agenda is to bring oil companies to a complete halt through disinvestment, that option is ruled out.
It is also possible that certain countries would far rather work with Exxon because Exxon will not be placing all manner of conditions on recipients of their fuel products as a hegemonic extension of their “green beliefs”.

NW sage
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo but really in Muminabad
February 27, 2016 5:03 pm

Agreed. We can include the fact that ANY energy company would be derelict in its fiduciary duty if it did NOT access the probability that rules such as the EPA’s will never be enforced or, if enforced, WHEN that might occur. Given those probabilities is is then possible to estimate the financial impact.

Geromino Stilton
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo but really in Muminabad
February 27, 2016 7:03 pm

While Exxon is placing a bet you have the wager wrong – it is betting that not enough people in the future will believe or care about climate change to do anything about it. The shareholders are asking what happens is that is wrong — i.e enough people believe in climate change to enforce legislation that harms oil companies.
This has nothing to do with whether or not climate change is true it is purely about whether or not people will
believe it. And given the current state of public opinion Exxon’s response is I think extremely risky since there is a good chance that there will be future caps on the amount of oil that can be drilled thus impacting Exxon’s future profits and assets.

Reply to  Geromino Stilton
February 27, 2016 8:38 pm

“This has nothing to do with whether or not climate change is true it is purely about whether or not people will believe it”
Anyway… Exxon is in no way more informed than anyone about who will be president and what will be voted.
The laws are supposed to protect the “weak”. The weak shareholder is the person without access to closed doors meetings. Are there closed door meetings where the future is predicted?
Having no valuable undisclosed information, Exxon isn’t hiding anything about the state of the (political) climate.
Exxon shouldn’t be forced to “disclose” already public information.

Reply to  Geromino Stilton
February 29, 2016 4:10 am

Geromino, are you referring to public opinion, or political opinion? Every opinion poll (including the UN’s own ‘one world’ survey) indicates that public opinion on gullible warming is somewhere near ‘couldn’t care less’, it’s only in the political arena (and in the gobshite’s corners at that) where talking about being seen to be doing something about gullible warming still has any traction. But since public opinion eventually dictates political opinion (at least as far as pure fashion topics like gullible warming are concerned) then I would say ExxonMobil has made the right bet and it’s those companies that assume there is a continued profit to be made from gullible warming advocacy and make their investments today accordingly who are at risk of stranding their assets tomorrow. What use will expensive capital investment in grand offshore windparks or gas infrastructure that was underwritten by the expectation of growing demand in electricity generation be once the world comes to it’s senses and realizes coal and uranium were the correct fuels for power generation all along since their affect on the weather is three fifths of five eights of far call?
ExxonMobil gets on doing what it does without the noise or flashy showmanship of some of it’s peers and without over-reacting to short term distractions, so if they’re saying ‘sod off’ to green blob minority shareholders, then I’d be inclined to wonder how long it is before the more reactionary companies are doing the same rather than wondering what sort of imaginary risk ExxonMobil are uniquely exposing themselves to.

Michael C. Roberts
Reply to  Geromino Stilton
February 29, 2016 8:24 am

‘It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true’ – Paul Watson, Greenpeace.
‘Nuff said. And with complicit multi-media, the hearts and minds of the masses are further moulded (molded?) into the shape of the Green Future. Kind of like a bowl of Green Jell-O, a quivering blob ready to engulf the rest of the Western world….

February 27, 2016 6:42 am

Exxon is the new Keystone target, much like Walmart is targeted by the unions out of a huge retail space.

Reply to  Resourceguy
February 28, 2016 1:20 pm

Greenies should acquire controlling interest in Exxon and shut the company down and incur the financial loss involved. Instead of doing this they want other others to incur the financial loss. Destruction of wealth.
Maybe Exxon can find another country to do business in?

February 27, 2016 6:45 am

The 32% reduction goal of the US’s Clean Power Plan will reduce anthro global CO2 by 1.6%. Wow. Impressive, no?

Reply to  Nicholas Schroeder
February 27, 2016 8:03 am

…will reduce anthro global CO2 by 1.6%. Wow. Impressive, no?

…and, to impress everyone even more (sarc), anthropogenic global CO2 is a small fraction of total CO2 entering the atmosphere, so the real total reduction is much smaller than the 1.6%.

…human emissions are now close to 5% of natural sources…


Mankind accounts for 5-6 Gt of CO2 emissions per year. Natural sources account for 190-225 Gt per year. The natural variability of 35 Gt is 6 to 7 times as large as the total anthropogenic emissions.


Reply to  Boulder Skeptic
February 27, 2016 12:12 pm

The tiny anthropogenic component is merely noise riding on the overwhelming controlling natural portion.

Reply to  Boulder Skeptic
February 28, 2016 12:02 am

boulder, CO2 has risen from about 300ppm to 400ppm in the last 60 years, and it should be more, as nature has already sucked half of the anthropogenic output. So that is plus 33%, methinks.

Reply to  Boulder Skeptic
February 28, 2016 6:51 am

I believe we are now at 36 Gt CO2/year, or 10 Gt Carbon. But that’s not the point. The CO2 emitted from burning fossil fuels if “new” Carbon into the global carbon cycle. It has been captured and stored for millions of years and is now being returned to the carbon cycle as additional carbon. The 190-225 Gt CO2 you refer to is already in the annual carbon cycle. The reason CO2 has gone from 280 ppm to 400 ppm is because our additions are substantial compared to the amount of carbon that is in the annual cycle of plant growth and decay. The oceans contain about 45 times as much carbon as the atmosphere, but only the surface layer is in annual flux.

Reply to  Boulder Skeptic
February 28, 2016 6:53 am

By the way, I am totally OK with our CO2 emissions, they are resulting in faster growth of crops and trees. And it looks less and less likely they will warm the planet enough, if any, to avert another major glaciation.

Reply to  Patrick Moore (@EcoSenseNow)
February 28, 2016 8:26 am

Is this the real Patrick Moore formerly of Greenpeace ?
If you don’t mind, I’d love to hear your opinion on the 3 most important priorities that the environmental profession should have these days. Possibly, I’m not alone in wanting to hear your opinion.
Obviously, the profession has lost its way and is likely to have a significant implosion once the CAGW movement crumbles.

Reply to  Boulder Skeptic
February 28, 2016 9:14 am

Thanks for the link. Interviews are a bit like tennis. Volley volley slice smash repeat.
If the issue is about the toxicity of roundup as compared to ummm ahhh natural products such as dung, it would be well advised to drink neither as that would be an inappropriate use of the product.
I am interested to hear his top 3 environmental priorities. Perhaps others would be interested as well.

February 27, 2016 6:49 am

It is a political risk so it will be dealt with like all other political risks.

February 27, 2016 6:52 am

“… you have to wonder how much harm this utter waste of corporate time and effort is doing to the US economy, to the reputation of the USA as a good place to invest, and to US jobs growth. …”
But that’s the whole point of it, Eric. Perhaps the next Presidential will start treating them as domestic enemies, attacking the national interest, and harming humans? If animals get legal protection from deliberate harm, I don’t see why humans shouldn’t get protection from malign green @rseholes. 😉

Reply to  Unmentionable
February 27, 2016 10:54 am

It’s amazing how the leftist agenda and the anti-AGW agenda just happen to match up so perfectly.

Reply to  Unmentionable
February 27, 2016 3:36 pm

That’s what India did to greenpeace. When their beliefs start damaging the economy then they’re domestic terrorists and should be treated as such under the law.

NW sage
Reply to  nigelf
February 27, 2016 5:05 pm

“Indians very wise” Tonto said so!

February 27, 2016 6:58 am

“he oil industry’s growing acceptance of the consequences of burning fossil fuels and the urgency to halt global warming”
this acceptance is based on a spurious correlation

February 27, 2016 7:00 am

I have been getting trolled by a “green bully” whining about exxon covering up something about climate change or whatever they want to call it, the really big question is why can’t these green bullies provide actual working proof ( not data ) of an actual model showing man made climate change in action, instead of their constant links to known liars, to try to get you to “believe”

Reply to  onenameleft
February 27, 2016 7:50 am

..It is a religion, therefore, no need for proof !!

February 27, 2016 7:17 am

The actual hilarity of the greens blaming an oil company for rising Co2 levels seems lost on them. The Oil companies are not burning the oil, millions of people are!

Reply to  stephana
February 27, 2016 7:37 am

The Oil companies are not burning the oil
oil is addictive. once you start burning it, you cannot stop. the more you burn, the more you want to burn, regardless of price. just like tobacco. therefore it is the oil companies fault, for selling an addictive product. because whatever happens to us, it is someone else’s fault.
we are helpless victims, exploited by corporate greed. and sexism and racism. it is all the oil companies fault. without oil none of this would have happened.

Paul of Alexandria
Reply to  ferdberple
February 27, 2016 7:56 am

You forgot the “/sarc”

Reply to  ferdberple
February 27, 2016 8:06 am

It was very clear to me that the /sarc tag was implied and unnecessary.

Reply to  ferdberple
February 27, 2016 9:49 am

the /sarc tag was implied
this part wasn’t sarcasm: “without oil none of this would have happened.”
our modern world would not have happened without oil. the same way that coal saved the forests from being cut down, oil saved plants and animals from being turned into fuel and industrial products on a massive scale. whales were not hunted for their meat. they were hunted for their oil. without the discovery of petroleum there would be no whales.
We take our modern conveniences for granted. We worry that a few degrees of warming in the Arctic will bring Armageddon to the earth. We want to put the genie back in the bottle, without stopping to ask what riches the genie has brought us.

Jim G1
February 27, 2016 7:18 am

Good for Exxon, whatever their reasoning. A lie is a lie and caving to it is never beneficial in the long run. Think I’ll buy some stock.

February 27, 2016 7:20 am

Excelent Exxon, I do hope you get a president that is not PC , tells it as it is and stands up to the greens and fellow travellers, then you will be cooking with gas, pun intended.

February 27, 2016 7:38 am

Any company has a strict duty to not mislead potential shareholders. When a company issues stock, it issues a prospectus. In the prospectus there is a risk section which must be brutally honest and complete. If it falls short then the shareholders can sue the company and the directors. Here’s an example.
Exxon has to mention anything that could materially affect the market for oil or which could expose it to liability. That’s where its obligation ends. If they don’t think the risk will materialize or if they are willing to gamble that it won’t, they don’t have to deal with it in their business plan.
An engineering company, which sells services and products to other engineering firms, cited the risk that its customers could become its competitors. In other words, any of its larger customers could decide to put it out of business. As far as I can tell, that was never dealt with in their business plan because doing so would have been a waste of resources. (The company was eventually bought out by a customer and the shareholders did well.)
Trying to deal with every conceivable risk is silly.

February 27, 2016 7:44 am

…Liberal stupidity ! Killing America, one company at a time !

Reply to  Marcus
February 27, 2016 8:29 am
Bruce Cobb
February 27, 2016 8:08 am

“Carbon Asset Risk” is a subterfuge. Asset risk is the least thing they are concerned with. It’s just one more Greenie ploy.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
February 27, 2016 9:28 am

“putting a cost on such emissions in order to create financial incentives”
with creation like that, who needs demolition?

Bruce Cobb
February 27, 2016 8:37 am

Come to think of it, what about all the “green” assets that are at risk, when the CAGW ideology propping it up comes crashing down? Someone should be advising them on this. It would be such a shame for them to lose all that money.

Steve Fraser
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
February 27, 2016 11:16 am

Suppose the Greenpeace ships run on Solar?

Reply to  Steve Fraser
February 27, 2016 3:47 pm

And sails and oars. A galley would suit them nicely with “deniers” chained to the oars as the green masters beat the stroke and crack the whip

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
February 27, 2016 1:29 pm

I wonder what happens when the”Lefties”run out of “Other Peoples”money?

Jean Meeus
February 27, 2016 8:42 am

Stephana, it’s CO2, not Co2. Once again…. (sigh)

Tom Judd
Reply to  Jean Meeus
February 27, 2016 8:56 am

Oh my god, Carbon pollution has screwed thinks up so much that Cobalt’s turning into Carbon!

Reply to  Tom Judd
February 27, 2016 9:27 am

I think you mean carbon in the fuel is being turned into molecular Cobalt dimers… Co cobalt in two atom molecules of Co2 … Since carbon is at.wt. 12 to 14 and Cobalt is about 59, this implies fusion of about 10 carbons into 2 Co cobalt atoms in the molecule. Interesting the coal is thus described as making heat via fusion, and it does… but only in stars…
/sarc; for the chemistry impaired. ..

Reply to  Jean Meeus
February 27, 2016 9:46 am

Actually it’s CO2 if that is an acceptable format here.

Reply to  Leo Smith
February 27, 2016 9:47 am

It seems it isn’t. NO subscript tag..

son of mulder
February 27, 2016 8:45 am

You don’t get affected by a committment, you get affected by something actually happening.

Tom Judd
February 27, 2016 8:53 am

“It’s a little bit like a toddler putting their fingers in their ears and saying if I can’t hear you then what you’re saying isn’t true,” said Shanna Cleveland, manager of the Carbon Asset Risk Initiative at the nonprofit sustainability advocacy group Ceres.”
Sometimes an thoroughly insulting, but imbecilic comment can only be adequately responded to with an equally insulting, but thoughtful comment. So, here I go:
Shanna, I don’t believe you’re right in describing Exxon as a toddler with their fingers in their ears and saying, ‘I can’t hear you so it isn’t true.’ But, I do believe I’m right in describing you as a toddler with her finger up her a.., and saying, ‘See, I’m not full of s..t.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Tom Judd
February 27, 2016 9:09 am

Good one, Tom. Her childish and imbecilic “toddler” comment stuck in my craw too.

Reply to  Tom Judd
February 27, 2016 9:47 am

My problem with that comment is Shanna and her greenie friends are the ones putting their fingers in their ears. They use the ad hominum and ad populum logical fallacies to avoid any debate. In fact, her very statement implies she will not debate and therefore is the one going “la la la la la I can’t hear you”. It is strange that the side is begging to have a discussion about the issue is accused of not listening whereas the side that does everything in their power to avoid discussing the issue is considered open-minded. It is bizzaro world where up is down, black is white, and you say goodbye when enter and hello when you leave.

Reply to  alexwade
February 27, 2016 3:53 pm

It’s a little bit like a toddler putting their fingers in their ears and saying if I can’t hear you then what you’re saying isn’t true

Actually, the warmists are the ones who are more like toddlers.
Toddlers wail and cry to wear down their parents in order to get their wishes – possibly logical from their limited knowledge and view but ignorant of the wider world that their parents must deal with.

Ralph Kramden
February 27, 2016 8:59 am

I agree with the above posts that a lot depends on who is the next President of the US. But remember in 2014 the US Supreme Court struck down limits on the amount of money corporations can donate to political campaigns. Anyone want to speculate on which side the oil companies will put their money?

Reply to  Ralph Kramden
February 27, 2016 9:12 am

If Exxon determines that investing in green technology is both politically and financially expedient given the latter is liberally subsidized, it could change its course. Dunno. Follow the money.

Reply to  Ralph Kramden
February 27, 2016 9:49 am

Trump isn’t taking donations. That way, he doesn’t owe the fatcats anything after he gets in Office, and is therefore free to act in the best interests of the United States, rather than in the best interests of the fatcats..

NW sage
Reply to  TA
February 27, 2016 5:17 pm

But a lot of senators are sitting there with their hands out!

Michael Jankowski
February 27, 2016 9:08 am

I’d disclose that there could be future, absurbld, and undetermined regulations put into place by ignorant politicians under pressure from activist wackos that could impact the company financials but that such an effect would be minimal because any such costs would be shifted to consumers.

Reply to  Michael Jankowski
February 27, 2016 11:27 am

yep, honest, straight forward.
also note that competitors will be under the same (regulatory) constraints, so no impact; and a waste of time/money addressing conjecture.

February 27, 2016 9:11 am

“More skeptics are speaking out, and Exxon cannot have failed to notice what percentage of their stockholders are not AGW “true believers.””
Even though they are!
Hypocrites much.
This is the same Exxon that ….. ?
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/comment image

Reply to  Toneb
February 27, 2016 9:19 am

Scientific American? These days it is neither scientific nor American. Sad too. I grew up reading real science that was published in that magazine. These days it is the “Journal of Applied Lysenkoism” owned by a German company.
More than four hundred years ago, people knew there were witches. King James I of England wrote a book on it. When a theory is not able to predict the future and can only predict the recent past and not even the past several thousand years of climate, I regard the theory as religion, not science. You might as well believe in creationism.

Reply to  ShrNfr
February 27, 2016 9:50 am

“More than four hundred years ago, people knew there were witches. King James I of England wrote a book on it. When a theory is not able to predict the future and can only predict the recent past and not even the past several thousand years of climate, I regard the theory as religion, not science. You might as well believe in creationism.”
I expect you won’t – but some might….
Watch, and take note that is.

Reply to  ShrNfr
February 27, 2016 12:44 pm

@ Toneb:
What a nice, subtle shift of the argument reference frame.
A) What is the evidence that CO2 causes Global Warming?
At 1:47 in the video:
B) What is the evidence that CO2 can cause Global Warming?
Not the same thing. Not the same thing at all.
Radiative physics dictates CO2 can cause GW due to IR absorption.
Dominant processes caused water vapor and convection are the reason CO2 does not cause GW.
Then the video makes the claim that H2O and CO2 are different because H2O can rain out. So What? After a rain, you still have tons of water vapor in the air.
If you overload the air with H2O, it rains out.
If you overload the air with CO2, in dissolves in the oceans.
They are the same.
Bonus Question:
Emit a photon at wavelength = 1500 cm-1 straight up. How far does it get towards the stratosphere before it gets absorbed by an H2O molecule?
Answer: 25 feet.
You expect a few ppm of CO2 to change that?

Reply to  ShrNfr
February 28, 2016 2:14 am

King James 1 was right about witches, I was once married to one, she terrified my young daughter and me.
Global warming is total BS but there are still women who believe they are witches and act accordingly.

Reply to  Toneb
February 27, 2016 9:29 am

Hmm. Just after the great global cooling scare…

Reply to  Toneb
February 27, 2016 9:49 am

Exxon knew about climate change 40 years ago. Good! They are smarter than the greens because the greenies seem to think the climate didn’t change until a few years ago.

Warren Latham
Reply to  Toneb
February 27, 2016 10:55 am

T one b,
Gday mate.
Try a scientific Australian; here he is:-
“Okay, here’s the bombshell. The recent volcanic eruption in Iceland . Since its first spewing of volcanic ash has, in just FOUR DAYS, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet – all of you.
Of course, you know about this evil carbon dioxide that we are trying to suppress – it’s that vital chemical compound that every plant requires to live and grow and to synthesize into oxygen for us humans and all animal life.
I know….it’s very disheartening to realize that all of the carbon emission savings you have accomplished while suffering the inconvenience and expense of driving Prius hybrids, buying fabric grocery bags, sitting up till midnight to finish your kids “The Green Revolution” science project, throwing out all of your non-green cleaning supplies, using only two squares of toilet paper, putting a brick in your toilet tank reservoir, selling your SUV and speedboat, vacationing at home instead of abroad, nearly getting hit every day on your bicycle, replacing all of your 50p light bulbs with £5 light bulbs ….. well, all of those things you have done have all gone down the tubes in just four days.
The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth’s atmosphere in just four days – yes, FOUR DAYS – by that volcano in Iceland has totally erased every single effort you have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon. And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud at any one time – EVERY DAY.
I don’t really want to rain on your parade too much, but I should mention that when the volcano Mt. Pinatubo erupted in the Philippinesin 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in all its years on earth.
Yes, folks, Mt. Pinatubo was active for over one year – think about it!!!!
Of course, I shouldn’t spoil this ‘touchy-feely tree-hugging’ moment and mention the effect of solar and cosmic activity and the well-recognized 800-year global heating and cooling cycle, which keeps happening despite our completely insignificant efforts to affect climate change.
And I do wish I had a silver lining to this volcanic ash cloud, but the fact of the matter is that the bush fire season across the westernUSA and Australia this year alone will negate your efforts to reduce carbon in our world for the next two to three years. And it happens every year.
Just remember that your government just tried to impose a whopping carbon tax on you, on the basis of the bogus ‘human-caused’ climate-change scenario.
Hey, isn’t it interesting how they don’t mention ‘Global Warming’ anymore, but just ‘Climate Change’ – you know why? It’s because the planet has COOLED by 0.7 degrees in the past few years and these global warming bull artists got caught with their pants down.
And, just keep in mind that you might yet have an Emissions Trading Scheme – that whopping new tax – imposed on you that will achieve absolutely nothing except make you poorer. It won’t stop any volcanoes from erupting, that’s for sure.
But, hey, relax……give the world a hug and have a nice day!!

Reply to  Warren Latham
February 27, 2016 5:47 pm

Is there any way to get this published on the front page of the NYT?

Reply to  Warren Latham
February 27, 2016 9:39 pm

Excellent, Warren.

Reply to  Warren Latham
February 28, 2016 8:42 am

The classic comeback to naturally occurring events is …. paraphrasing
That’s different. Mother nature knows what’s best for her planet. We can’t control volcanoes, but we can control the scaring of the land, the localized polluting of the waters and air we breath. You use volcanoes to excuse the greed and abuse of man’s propensity to be careless w limited resources.
The comeback shifts the argument, taps the emotions, and wields half truths. If you ever have the opportunity, watch the body language of the person who has to listen to the above. The shoulders slump. Head droops. False guilt is easily triggerred.

Reply to  Toneb
February 27, 2016 11:17 am

“Experts, however, aren’t terribly surprised.”
“Furthermore, experts agree that”
“But experts are still piecing together Exxon’s misconception puzzle”
“Although experts will never be able to quantify the damage Exxon’s misinformation has caused”
“Experts agree that the damage is huge”
Noami O., who can’t tell correlation from causation, and think p<.05 rules out spurious correlations, is an "expert", of course.

Reply to  simple-touriste
February 27, 2016 5:03 pm

X being an unknown quantity and a spurt being a drip under pressure ?

Reply to  simple-touriste
February 28, 2016 4:09 pm

Naomi Klein and her 350.org pals should invest all of their money in Exxon and take the loss if and when the company goes down.

February 27, 2016 9:15 am

Here’s a link to ExxonMobil’s outlook to 2040. This document projects a significantly lower oil production forecast than the IPCC RCP8.5 case, which I’ve pointed out is a pretty senseless forecast. http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/energy/energy-outlook

Reply to  Fernando Leanme
February 28, 2016 8:47 am

Homewood has the BP prospectus on his page. Large corporations are notorious for writing them in a style that projects the current known into the future. Focusing on the current known such as projected asset growth with all things being the same is rather pointless.
I’ll take Real Estate Asset Projections for 500 Alex.

February 27, 2016 9:16 am

Asteroid impacts can have an impact on the business if they fall on or near an oil rig.
And a possible law against apples would hurt the apple businesses…

February 27, 2016 9:23 am

A.D. 980-1016
It is always a temptation to an armed and agile nation
To call upon a neighbour and to say: —
“We invaded you last night–we are quite prepared to fight,
Unless you pay us cash to go away.”
And that is called asking for Dane-geld,
And the people who ask it explain
That you’ve only to pay ’em the Dane-geld
And then you’ll get rid of the Dane
Now use “Green-geld” instead of “Dane-geld” and you have an idea as
to what this is about..

Reply to  tgmccoy
February 27, 2016 9:33 am

It is a Knight Fork. Either they tumble to the threat, or they get sued for not submitting. No win for the target. The only effective response is a counter attack so brutal the Knight is killed along with attacking the King…

Nigel S
Reply to  E.M.Smith
February 28, 2016 2:15 am

‘…the shores of Tripoli;’ is probably the best solution to this sort of piracy.

February 27, 2016 9:29 am

It is pretty clear that CO2 is having an adverse affect on the health of human brains and the ability to think clearly. I have noticed it myself …

February 27, 2016 9:32 am

On Energy:
I have worked in the energy industry for most of my career.
When challenged on the global warming question by green fanatics, I explain that that fossil fuels keep their families from freezing and starving to death.
Cheap abundant reliable energy is the lifeblood of society – it IS that simple.
Furthermore, I suggest that recognition of this reality is an ethical and a professional obligation.
The following numbers are from the 2015 BP Statistical Review of World Energy, for the year 2014:
Global Primary Energy Consumption by Fuel is 86% Fossil Fuel (Oil, Coal and Natural Gas),
4% Nuclear,
7% Hydro,
and 2% Renewables.
That 2% for Renewables is vastly exaggerated, and would be less than 1% if intermittent wind and solar power were not forced into the electrical grid ahead of cheaper and more reliable conventional power.
This is not news – we have known this energy reality for decades. As we published in 2002.
“The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.”
On Grid-Connected Wind and Solar Power:
Wind Power is what global warming alarmists typically embrace – trillions of dollars have been squandered on worthless grid-connected wind power schemes that require life-of-project subsidies and drive up energy costs.
Some background on grid-connected wind power schemes:
The Capacity Factor of wind power is typically a bit over 20%, but that is NOT the relevant factor.
The real truth is told by the Substitution Capacity, which is dropping to as low as 4% in Germany – that is the amount of conventional generation that can be permanently retired when wind power is installed into the grid.
The E.ON Netz Wind Report 2005 is an informative document:
(apparently no longer available from E.ON Netz website).
Figure 6 says Wind Power is too intermittent (and needs almost 100% spinning backup);
Figure 7 says it just gets worse and worse the more Wind Power you add to the grid (see Substitution Capacity dropping from 8% to 4%).
Same story applies to grid-connected Solar Power (both in the absence of a “Super-Battery”).
This was obvious to us decades ago.
Trillions of dollars have been squandered globally on green energy that is not green and produces little useful energy.
On Global Warming Alarmism:
We also write in the same 2002 article, prior to recognition that the current ~20 year “Pause” (actually a Plateau) was already underway:
“Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”
I (we) now think global cooling will commence after the current El Nino runs its course, prior to 2020 and possibly as soon as 2017. Bundle up!
Regards to all, Allan

Reply to  Allan MacRae
February 27, 2016 9:46 am

You make a much better argument for Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors than you do for oil and gas. As I am sure you are aware, nuclear energy has a million times the energy density of a carbon-hydrogen bond. We would never have to worry about peak thorium.

Reply to  davidgmills
February 28, 2016 1:06 am

Hello davidgmills
Energy density is all very good, but there is a practical point of diminishing returns. For example, gasoline is an adequate transportation fuel but hydrogen is much less so. Moving from gasoline to uranium does not get you much incremental benefit, unless you are operating a nuclear warship.
For stationary applications like power stations, the incremental benefit of greater energy density is even less – natural gas is as good (or better) than nuclear.
The more important issue that energy density is intermittency, and in this regard both wind and solar power have a huge deficiency for power grid applications, and this deficiency is very difficult to overcome.
One honest question:
IF thorium reactors are so good, why are they not in greater use worldwide?
Is it development cost, or some technological problem or what?
Regards, Allan

Richard T
Reply to  Allan MacRae
February 27, 2016 10:08 am

Add this site to your list: http://transmission.bpa.gov/Business/Operations/Wind/baltwg.aspx
It may be listed somewhere above as I have only scanned the above responses.

February 27, 2016 9:32 am

Green loco. Green loco. Send them through the windmill gauntlets. Roast them in the solar ovens. Dip them in the green, toxic material sludge. Resuscitate them between renewable wind bursts and solar flares.
Nature likes oil, but hates green technology. People like green technology, but hate oil?
When China goes…

Mr Green Genes
Reply to  n.n
February 28, 2016 1:07 am

Green loco you say.
Here’s one.

Mike the Morlock
February 27, 2016 9:34 am

Hi, Eric Worrall
I posted the link below in Tips & notes but thought I should link it again. Its not just EXXON but some of the States themselves. (Yes I know its West Virginia but it has to start samewhere)

February 27, 2016 10:00 am

Sorry, but Tips and Notes is far too long to load. Waited fifteen minutes, and still did not finish.
Anyway, Al Gore has released a new Ted Talk, full of nonsense.

Jeff L
February 27, 2016 10:23 am

Never ever bet against the Tiger.
Losing is not an option for The Tiger.
The Greens clearly don’t know these facts

February 27, 2016 10:53 am

It’s about time they started standing up to these thugs, I only wish they go a lot further and start shutting the fuel off the shakedown artists and troublemakers.

February 27, 2016 11:19 am

need the public stock wind industry companies (and the like) to include detailed and honest plans for:
The end of guaranteed sales rates,
The possibility of the “magic” (economically feasible fusion, etc) energy source,
The end of the AGW scare (through measured global cooling),
The end of the politically driven federal EIA bs.
And lots of other stuff that will make their business plan realistic and their stock worthless.

William Astley
February 27, 2016 11:36 am

This is surreal. Groups think/act in a predictable manner. Groups will repeat the same astonishing errors that occurred in the past. The future is predictable.
What important near future issues should Exxon warn their shareholders about? The general public and the general media are absolutely clueless as to what is going to happen next as surely as the sun rises in the east.
As the majority of the idiots (sheep) believed the message that climate change is an end of the world problem, they supported government policies to spend and act like it was the end of world.
Live for today, spend like it is the end of the world. If the ethos is that climate change is an end of the world problem, white lies and suppression of information that disproves CAGW is OK as the public/politicians need a scary story to force action.
Helped by the climate wars’ ethos, the Obama bellwether machine pushed and got caught up with the crazy idea that deficits do not matter (see series of astonishing books pushing that goofy idea) and started actively supporting the suppression of the truth (politically correct) and fraudulent analysis. Real in your face problems have gotten lost in the noise and are not discussed by the politically media.
Issue 1: Fraudulent UN IPCC scientific analysis? Climate models that are known to be comically incorrect? Incompetent, fraudulent analysis is different than we could not figure out how to solve a problem.
Suppression of analysis that disproves CO2 CAGW? Has there ever been massive fraudulent analysis and suppression of analysis that disproves a paradigm, in other fields? What conditions supports, almost forces, a group to suppress analysis to push an incorrect/fraudulent paradigm?
Imminent cooling of the planet? Possible or not possible?
No less than 66% of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 due to natural causes? Green scams are a colossal waste of money? No more money to spend on green scams that do not work, due to issue 2. Anyone heard about issue 2?
There are unequivocal observational and analysis results to support the implied assertions (the questions were rhetorical) in issue 1.
Issue 2: Imminent US currency collapse? What was QE1? What was QE2? What has been going on 2008 to 2016, in the US in particular and in almost every developed and developing country (different flavors, same basic problem)? What happens when a country prints massive amounts of money, borrows massive amounts of money, and spends massive amounts of money now that is required for future entitlements?
Why is the Economist magazine suddenly talking about an unsolvable unavoidable financial ‘slowdown’, the end of the road for ‘financial stimulus’, and the end of the road for borrowing?
Why are the same guys that warned us about the 2008 mortgage collapse talking about a US currency collapse?
The movie entitled ‘The Big Short’ is based on a true story. A small group of financial specialists found in 2007 that basic analysis indicated that the US mortgage bundles were fraudulently overpriced and that the mortgage bundle market has imminently going to crash.
They (a group of about 7 guys) made a presentation in 2007 to a couple of thousand financial specialists at a financial conference in Vegas. They presented at the conference very basic unequivocal evidence that supported the assertion that the Mortgage bundle market was fraudulent overpriced and was going unavoidablely to crash sometime in 2008.
The couple of thousand financial specialists who attended the Vegas conference were senior independent financial analysis staff, Bank employees/analysis staff, senior government employees/analysis staff, and employees/analysis staff of all of the major Stock broker companies.
They (the group of 7 guys making the presentation) asked for funds to short the Mortgage bundle market.
The weird thing is the Mortgage bundle market did crash in 2008 and yet almost none of the 2000 specialists who attended the conference believed and/or would speak up (including senior media representatives), in 2007 that the mortgage bundle market was fraudulent overpriced and eminently going to crash.
Even though the evidence presented was unequivocal, not difficult to understand, and completely supported their assertions – The financial community almost completely tuned them out. Almost no financial specialists would believe that it was possible that a massive market could be comically, fraudulently, over priced and about to collapse.
For some complex weird reason specialists have some an unexplainable block to considering that some of their most fundamental beliefs are fraudulently incorrect and will cause significant damage to the world economy. i.e. To admit to the fact that their fundamental beliefs are incorrect, is also to admit that there is massive incompetence in their field and/or fraudulent analysis in their industry/government agencies/and so on. To speak up is to be a denier, to not be a team player.
While the surreal climate wars has been going on all the governments of the world have been spending more than they take in taxes and spending money (which should be set aside for future forced entitlements) which they take in that is required for future liabilities such as for government pensions and social security.

NW sage
Reply to  William Astley
February 27, 2016 5:33 pm

Yes. See the evidence in Nina Teicholz’s thoroughly researched book – The Big FAT Surprise. Sixty years of scientific fraud very similar to the climate change issue has produced immense damage to the health of the population of the United States.

Reply to  William Astley
February 27, 2016 6:00 pm

ABC News TV did a series on warning about investing in real estate and that the bubble would burst.

Reply to  William Astley
February 27, 2016 8:09 pm

“For some complex weird reason specialists have some an unexplainable block to considering…”
I think simple facts are sometimes only obvious to
– outsiders
– machine wash-resistant insiders

John Robertson
February 27, 2016 12:13 pm

of course they have to fight, being eaten by Gangrene is not an option.
And this particularly noxious version of gaseous Gangrene is a cultured product provided by our Kleptocracies.
CAGW created,promoted and protected from investigation by our bureaucrats and politicians.
The Gangrene, these gangs of “Green”, new environmentalists, emotionally unstable tools… they are genuine astroturf mobs, funded with tax payers money either directly or through charitable status scams.
Ask yourself, how is it possible for the money laundering operations such as Tides Canada, to persist?
Without policy collusion within our governments.?

Reply to  John Robertson
February 27, 2016 8:25 pm

With charity status money can be moved around tax free between countries.
Money was brought into Canada to shut down oil production in Alberta oil sands. Canada had its own bashers that encouraged this activity including a well known journalist.
Canadians will just have to do without the Alberta oil revenue sharing.
Anyway the whole idea is to destroy fossil fuel companies. So they are made worthless by those pushing renewable energy.
There is no appeasing the bullies engaged in activities against fossil fuel companies. This was tried but didn’t work.

Reply to  Barbara
February 27, 2016 9:59 pm

It’s easy for marketeers to demonize fossils. Most people are removed from where their power comes from because they live in major cities. The power magically comes in the same way the groceries do. Much like they did with coal, other fossils are easily demonized for being dirty and destructive towards the environment.
A number of realities can change that perception but for now marketeers have the upper hand. On the other hand, it’s interesting to watch Japan have its “oh sh_t” moment and decide that they actually need reliable coal fired plants.
These next 2 years will see some fascinating choices (and perhaps reversals) made by various governments concerning energy.

February 27, 2016 1:08 pm

For heavens sake, if they had some balls, why didn’t they just say “We will consider action when someone produces evidence that burning oil effects global temperature. We will give further consideration if it can be shown that this effect is negative.”

February 27, 2016 2:37 pm

Unfortunately bullying often works, which is why it persists Companies are induced or persuaded to waste ridiculous amounts of management time and money producing environmental financial impact reports. Bullying also now comes from all sorts of sources, governments, Islamists, Warmistas, Greenies, Socialists, Totalitarians, and other funding aspirants. Fighting the bullies, risks companies huge amounts of legal and running costs. Challenging government backed Greenies in the courts is very costly either way.
The increasing signs of fight-back from industry is very welcome and I hope that it spreads to government.

Reply to  ntesdorf
February 27, 2016 10:04 pm

The Trial Lawyers Association is one of America’s largest lobbying orgs and source of political donations. Much like a stock broker they are happy as long as their is some action.

February 27, 2016 3:41 pm

There is actually a much more entertaining argument with which to turn such activist mewlings completely on their head:
“The possible explanation as to why we are still in an interglacial relates to the early anthropogenic hypothesis of Ruddiman (2003, 2005). According to that hypothesis, the anomalous increase of CO2 and CH4 concentrations in the atmosphere as observed in mid- to late Holocene ice-cores results from anthropogenic deforestation and rice irrigation, which started in the early Neolithic at 8000 and 5000 yr BP, respectively. Ruddiman proposes that these early human greenhouse gas emissions prevented the inception of an overdue glacial that otherwise would have already started.”
conclude Muller and Pross (2007) http://folk.uib.no/abo007/share/papers/eemian_and_lgi/mueller_pross07.qsr.pdf
Pass that through the Precautionary Principle and you find yourself on some very unstable climate change ground indeed. The possibility exists that Exxon’s present business model is supporting the maintenance of the only presently known speedbump to glacial inception. Greenhouse gases……
“The most common articulation of the precautionary principle is the Wingspread Statement on the
Precautionary Principle, a consensus document drafted and adopted by a group of environmental
activists and academics in January 1998. The statement defined the precautionary principle thus:
“When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary
measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully
established scientifically.
“In this context the proponent of an activity, rather than the public, should bear the burden of
“The process of applying the Precautionary Principle must be open, informed and democratic
and must include potentially affected parties. It must also involve an examination of the full
range of alternatives, including no action.”
(“The Problems with Precaution: A Principle without Principle”, Jonathan H. Adler, The American, The Journal of the American Enterprise Institute, Wednesday, May 25, 2011)
The “proponent of an activity”, thus becomes “the New York State comptroller’s office and four co-filers” whom also seek “an explanation of how Exxon will address those impacts”. Based on far more than the citation above, Exxon’s initial response might take the form of:
“We have examined all of the data put forth on anthropogenic climate change. We have also considered when we live. We have concluded that if the proponents of the activity of removing anthropogenic greenhouse gases from the late Holocene atmosphere are correct about the efficacy of carbon dioxide/methane/etc., then the burden of proof falls on the proponents to prove that “the activity” of limiting or removing GHGs from said late Holocene atmosphere will not lead to “inception of an overdue glacial that otherwise would have already started.”
Tables neatly turned.
Just sayin’

Reply to  William McClenney
February 27, 2016 8:05 pm

“some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically”
This sentence suggests that there is such clear separation between “fully established scientifically” and “not fully established scientifically”.
But there is only weight of evidence. (In physics, the evidence is often hyper-mega-huge.)

Reply to  simple-touriste
February 28, 2016 11:35 pm

Correct. Keep in mind that you are reading a quote from the “Wingspread Statement”. These are the words of the precautionistas themselves.

Reply to  William McClenney
February 27, 2016 10:12 pm

The term precautionary principle is deeply tied to the concept of emergency powers due to an imminent and substantial endangerment. America’s emergency management plan is found in the National Response Framework (NRF).
Beware. Once you start researching the above you will not see daylight for days.

Reply to  knutesea
February 28, 2016 11:38 pm

Correct again. Keep in mind the source article for the quote entitled “The Problems with Precaution: A Principle without Principle”.

February 27, 2016 4:56 pm

Shouldn’t the “regulators” (those producing “regulations”) inform their “shareholders” (employees) that if (or when) a law is passed against idiotic “regulations”, they’d better update their CV?

February 28, 2016 12:06 am

As first mentioned, it will “entirely” depend on who the next President is.

Reply to  Rob
February 28, 2016 9:41 pm

I remain unconvinced that there will be a “next” President.

Proud Skeptic
February 28, 2016 3:50 am

If I were Exxon, I would respond by saying simply…”We plan to do nothing.”

David Cage
February 28, 2016 5:08 am

It is not really standing up to the Eco bullies unless it takes Eco protesters to court in civil actions for damages. It could then demand that the claims of the climate scientists are externally validated by comparing their claims to actual events. They could also demand that no adjustment of the data made after the first claims for the science beyond question should be permitted as clearly Either the modification or the original claim has to be criminal deception. Without first being tried in court no claim of greater crime should be allowed to use as a defence against charges of vigilante actions.

February 28, 2016 7:36 am

It you haven’t visited it, Exxon has a nice blog to address all the attacks they face. I would encourage WUWT to send some of their best posts and articles their way. I’ve been promoting the idea of an source temperature reconstruction contest to expose the fraud that is the Hockeystick. progressives on the defense is the best offense.

Reply to  co2islife
February 29, 2016 1:59 pm

Iowahawk does it for you. Even walks you thru it.

Gunga Din
February 28, 2016 1:45 pm

Good for them.
Next would be for them to cut off all contributions to the “Go Green” things that vilify them.
For example, Decades ago, before “CAGW”, I noticed PBS in the US would have programs that vilified this or that political view or industry in the show but they then thanked this or that industry for their financial support.
I hope Exxon has “reached out to pet the dog and pulled back a bloody stump” one too many times.

Sun Spot
February 28, 2016 5:44 pm

DON’T trust Trump on the Climate file, basically Trump has said nothing of substance about anything of substance. TRUMP IS NOT A CONSERVATIVE, Donald Trump belongs to the “Donald Trump Party” and that party is a LIBERAL as they get.

Dave G
Reply to  Sun Spot
February 28, 2016 7:13 pm

Yes, But we know Rubio is an open borders whore and Cruz is an H1B whore. So… let’s try something new.

Dave G
February 28, 2016 7:12 pm

Really stupid shareholders…
How will they deal with current MidEast Price war is much more compelling… Oil is all about supply and demand… When there is oversupply or less demand, the supplies get shut off until the price corrects. It’s that simple.

Bob Lyman
February 29, 2016 4:55 am

This is perplexing to say the least. I can understand that an EXXON shareholder might want to be assured that the company strategic planning was taking full account of all important risks. In this case, however, the shareholders’ demands seem to be to accept at face value that the political agreement reached at COP21 in Paris will definitely result in governments taking action to sharply reduce GHG emissions, even at the cost of major damage to the economies of the world and therefore EXXON’s clients. TE COP21 agreement however is a hollow shell; the only commitment is to produce a plan and to submit periodic reports, with all countries given wide latitude as to exactly what they will include in the plan. By what perverse logic that constitute a threat to EXXON’s core business to which they must adjust. What possible basis is there in law to sue the company? With every passing day the CAGW thesis becomes more of an instrument of radical environmentalist bullying and undermining of the public interest.

February 29, 2016 5:49 am

How much damage to the US economy?
That’s the goal after all.

February 29, 2016 6:20 am

…Just received my new EXXON card along with my new Suburban with the big 8.2 liter gas sucking engine…my garden loves it 🙂

Verified by MonsterInsights