WSJ Confirms Collusion Behind #ExxonKnew

Bill McKibben, others, at secret meeting

Excerpt:

A key meeting in the new push unfolded in January behind the closed doors of a Manhattan office building.

The session brought together about a dozen people, including Kenny Bruno, a veteran of environmental campaigns, and Bill McKibben, founder of 350.org, two activists who helped lead the successful fight to block the Keystone XL pipeline. The new campaign’s goals include “to establish in public’s mind that Exxon is a corrupt institution that has pushed humanity (and all creation) toward climate chaos and grave harm,” according to an agenda of the meeting viewed by The Wall Street Journal. This new legal strategy stems in part from environmentalists’ frustration at what they see as the inadequacy of recent climate deals.

Their hope is to encourage state attorneys general and the U.S. Justice Department to launch investigations and lawsuits that ultimately will change Exxon’s behavior, force it to pay big damages and drive public attention to climate change. “It’s about helping the larger public understand the urgencies of finding climate solutions,” said Lee Wasserman, director of the Rockefeller Family Fund, which hosted the January meeting. “It’s not really about Exxon.”

Exxon and its supporters dismiss the comparison with tobacco. Cigarettes are a harmful, addictive product used by a portion of the public, they say, while fossil fuels are fundamental to the world economy.

In Wednesday’s filing, Exxon’s lawyers say the company has confirmed for more than a decade that it sees the risks of climate change, and that it has publicly advocated for a carbon tax as the best way to regulate carbon emissions.

Full story:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/exxon-fires-back-at-climate-change-probe-1460574535

h/t to Matt Dempsey

Advertisements

158 thoughts on “WSJ Confirms Collusion Behind #ExxonKnew

  1. At some point, it will no longer be in Exxon’s best interest to continue ignoring these fruitcakes.
    There may very well be liable lawsuits in the future.

    • Exxon, like many energy companies, is funding the warmunists generously. They are being justly rewarded for their suicidal stupidity. They are like the frog giving the scorpion a ride across the river.

  2. That’s not “collusion”, that’s how campaigns are organized. Nor is it “secret” because WUWT wasn’t advised in advance. Somebody needs a dictionary.

    • “That’s not “collusion”, that’s how campaigns are organized.”
      No it’s only bad when the Big Villains do it, right?

      • The legal definition of collusion:
        “An agreement between two or more people to defraud a person of his or her rights or to obtain something that is prohibited by law.
        A secret arrangement wherein two or more people whose legal interests seemingly conflict conspire to commit Fraud upon another person; a pact between two people to deceive a court with the purpose of obtaining something that they would not be able to get through legitimate judicial channels.”
        http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/collusion
        How did Wasserman put it?
        “It’s about helping the larger public understand the urgencies of finding climate solutions,” said Lee Wasserman, director of the Rockefeller Family Fund, which hosted the January meeting. “It’s not really about Exxon.”
        Because its really about this:
        “This new legal strategy stems in part from environmentalists’ frustration at what they see as the inadequacy of recent climate deals.”
        So their strategy is to:
        “to establish in public’s mind that Exxon is a corrupt institution that has pushed humanity (and all creation) toward climate chaos and grave harm,”
        The legal definition of Fraud:
        “A false representation of a matter of fact—whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed—that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury.”
        “Fraud is commonly understood as dishonesty calculated for advantage.”
        http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/fraud
        Again, how did Wasserman put it?
        “It’s not really about Exxon.”
        When the ill advised and very public investigations of Exxon by all these State AG’s leads to nothing, and, at the very least, rumors of malfeasance and abuse of process suits begins, those AG’s are going to want to point the finger at someone or some people. Whether those people met in secret or not is not the issue.

      • That is not what ExxonMobil is being investigated for.
        Perhaps correct. But perhaps that is why ExxonMobil is being investigated. Just sayin’.
        I take the demographic view (having had it hammered into me by Herman Kahn). Both my grad and undergrad studies were in History. For perspective. I would argue that ExxonMobile, net, has improved, protected, saved, and extended far more lives than it has cost.
        And yes, there has been cost. But we also willingly pay ~30,000 lives a year to traffic accidents for the inestimable, transcendent benefit of a basic transportation far better (and much safer, and cleaner) than that of the kings of old. If speed limits went down to 20 mph, the death rate would be minimal (and at 30 mph, it would be a lot higher than at 20). Are you in favor of lowering the national speed limit to 20 mph? Or 30?

      • If I recall, there were approximately that many horse and carriage accident deaths in the Victorian era. As a proportion of population, and definitely as a proportion of miles traveled, traffic accident deaths have actually decreased in recent decades.

      • That number would likely go up due to increased time spent on the roadways. Higher speed tips a few injuries towards death, but mostly just increases the severity of death, i.e., the difference between dead and unquestionably dead.

      • jpaullanier:
        Its not just Exxon but the tip of something way more pernicious aimed at any and all organizations that question the politically correct environmental dogma. The White House [read Holdren advising Obama] is hip deep into this and if this campaign gets any traction, why not, even a blog like WUWT could find itself in the cross hairs.
        The way in which this is organized politically with state AGs lining up behind Gore and Co, there is enough here to remind those of us old enough of McCarthyism, defined as “the practice of making accusations of subversion or treason without proper regard for evidence”. It also means “the practice of making unfair allegations or using unfair investigative techniques, especially in order to restrict dissent or political criticism.”
        Please note the reference to “unfair investigative techniques” and the central objective “to restrict dissent or political criticism”. See the parallels and the problem?
        In tackling Exxon the folks organizing this may find themselves staring down a bigger bore barrel than they realize. Should this go to court, something tells me that Exxon will be asking some pointed questions of its own about what GISS, NOAA and other government agencies knew, and in particular when, including evidence of extensive data “adjustments” and a few other pointed questions that come to mind.
        Zealots somehow never see it coming when in their fervor they hoist themselves unto the own petards.

      • “I would argue that ExxonMobil, net, has improved, protected, saved, and extended far more lives than it has cost.”
        You can argue that, Evan, but it is irrelevant to the question of whether the AGW activist meeting can be equated in any meaningful sense to the actions of ExxonMobil which led to the present investigation.

      • “There is nothing wrong with a private meeting. That is not what ExxonMobil is being investigated for.”
        Any meeting, public or private, in which there is hatched a plan to commit fraud by false accusations is of interest to a prosecutor. It is fascinating to see these zealots freely embarking on a plan to falsely accuse a corporation of knowingly ‘driving the planet to the edge of catastrophe’ simply to continue their campaign infected by so much noble cause corruption.
        The moral vacuum in which they operate is incredible, in that anyone with the common sense of morality that underlies the social contract upon which society is built would not entertain such egregious violation of that contract.
        The stated intention from the outset is to induce people to believe they are in mortal danger, and that a large public company should be blamed for it, even if they are not ultimately held accountable. The mere sustained and admittedly false accusations will be enough to ‘achieve’ their goal of frightening humanity and assigning blame, as does a mob, to a visible and accessible ’cause’.
        What’s next for these clowns? “Arabs” knew about it all along so they conspired to sell oil to the West in order to bring down the house?
        Let’s investigate all the renewable energy companies that knew from the started their technologies could never deliver the claimed performance, but proceeded to induce people to buy them with false advertising and false or misleading technical data sheets. I have just had another experience of the man at the podium claiming that the name plate capacity of windmills (in Germany) is the same as the output. The intention was to mislead. And to collect money for the industry. Investigate such industries for collusion to commit fraud. It is rich pickings.

      • Are you in favor of lowering the national speed limit to 20 mph? Or 30?
        ===============================
        under the Precautionary Principle, speed limits should be lowered to zero. In that way cars would no longer cause traffic accidents. And for all practical purposes, CO2 emissions from cars would drop to zero.
        So really, the problem with global warming is not caused by CO2. It is caused by having speed limits too high. A zero MPH speed limit would solve a whole lot of problems.

      • I apologize to the mod and to those who have posted here for my use of the term “deniers.” I’ve located the Policy page and I will abide by it. It would have been helpful if I had looked for guidelines before posting.

    • So taking dirty oil money from one source (Rockerfellers), to conduct a campaign against dirty oil money from Exxon is…ok?
      The deep ethical confusion of the Left…writ large.

      • jpaullanier
        Assuming Exxon actually did so, since when is it a crime not to act on part of the information at your disposal. Based on many years as a senior executive in business areas that live and die based on hard nosed due diligence, rest assured that at senior corporate levels decisions tend to be made on the basis of the best aggregate information available – in Exxon’s case this may have included having partaken of e.g. Hansen’s ravings / arbitrarily adjusted GISS data or Mann’s fraudulent constructions. Again assuming this was the case, not taking that discredited/debunked pseudo scientific junk at face value or somehow accepting those travesties as “science is settled” proof of CACG, reflects very well on Exxon senior management.
        Because, contrary to what you still appear to believe, none of that type of garbage -which includes e.g. Karl’s “there is no pause” paper last year or yet another one of Cook “97%” concoctions- constitutes proof for anything, other than this so called “evidence” is propaganda junk.
        Until proven in court, beyond any reasonable doubt, Exxon broke no laws by not acting on alarmist propaganda. I wish McKibben, Gore and the assorted Democrat party affiliated AGs good luck – they are in danger of choking on what they’re biting off. In which case they leave themselves wide open to a counter suit – government too can be found guilty for transgressing the law. Just ask Obama….

      • A few years ago Sierra Club accepted USD25MM from a gas company to run an anti-coal campaign. The environmental movement left any semblance of morals and ethics at the garbage dump a long, long time ago. They’re very Genghis Kahn like pragmatic: the end justifies the means..
        And please note that for the eNGOs “end” is not the end of hydrocarbons but their own continued operational survival: Greenpeace is nothing more than a multinational corporation with an estimated turnover of USD1billion p.a., whose sole product is fear based on environmental ideology served by means of sophisticated disinformation.

    • Sure;
      and Mckibben and his ‘friendly’ buds rode their bamboo bicycles across the country to Manhattan, than stayed in Central Park with the other bums?
      Meanwhile at the Manhattan, no doubt inexpensive $2 meeting place, they honestly discuss a smear campaign and their intention to;

      “…encourage state attorneys general and the U.S. Justice Department to launch investigations and lawsuits that ultimately will change Exxon’s behavior…”

      No criminal actions, just lawsuits with intention to harass Exxon and damage their commercial image.
      Collusion to harm and damage are key actions leading to RICO interest, against the friendly buds.

      “…force it to pay big damages and drive public attention to climate change…”

      Again, that delusional concept that harassment alone will bring Exxon to pay big monies…

      “It’s about helping the larger public understand the urgencies of finding climate solutions,” said Lee Wasserman, director of the Rockefeller Family Fund, which hosted the January meeting. “It’s not really about Exxon.”

      Tawdry shameless fabrications and harassment will help the larger public? No, it isn’t really about Exxon or the larger public.
      Such nice harmless activists, working hard on their first RICO violations.

      • I noticed from jpaullanier or John Paul Lanier’s posts we are now called “Climate science deniers” ( 6:18 pm) it isn’t “Climate Change” deniers or ” Global Warming ” deniers, we are now supposed to be denying science, which to me is totally untrue. The semantics are changing and to me these changes are alarming, I hope people see this and take note. It is the first time I have seen this description .

      • asybot:
        I’m just referring to those who routinely reject the mainstream findings of climate scientists. Now maybe there is a better term to describe those who adhere to familiar talking points which have become the staple of opponents of AGW activists. As they pretty much reject any scientific finding which challenges their ideology, I do not think “skeptic” is an accurate term. A skeptic does not reject scientific evidence out of hand, nor does a skeptic accept unquestionably the various conspiracy theories which are repeated incessantly. One example is the conviction that state AGs are somehow in cahoots with “McKibben, Gore and the assorted Democrat party” (tetris).
        I don’t see that this crowd can continue to object to any characterization which accurately identifies them as opponents of mainstream climate science.

        • jpaullanier,
          You can’t even quantify what’s called ‘AGW’ with verifiable measurements. Therefore, you fall back on your ‘appeal to authority’ logical fallacy.
          This is a science site. If you’ve got measurements — post them.

        • jpaullanier,
          There are no “mainstream findings” that include measurable data quantifying AGW. It’s all speculation. Assertions. Conjectures. Opinions that are contradicted by the real world.
          And who cares about your opinion of what a skeptic is? There isn’t a single honest scientific skeptic in the entire climate alarmist crowd.

      • dbstealey:
        This is not a general discussion on the validity of AGW, and I am not going to contribute to your hijacking of the question under discussion by responding to any of your posts.

      • jpaullanier Hi how ya doing this evening?
        Okay lets start, “I’m just referring to those who routinely reject the mainstream findings of climate scientists.” Mainstream climate scientists. You mean the remedial readers that you follow.
        Now no one here denie$ science. Such a silly childish and immature accusation. Lets be truthful what really ticks you off its not we have the issue with its the self proclaimed “activists”that is what we den(y) Like you.
        The mainstream activist climate scientist are not the legendary giants who had others stand upon their shoulders to see afar. You cannot be both a activist and a scientist. You cannot serve two masters A activist is a political creature compelled to advocate his views irregardless of their validity. The cause becomes part and parcel to the activists identity. Form activist you transform into fanatic. wheres nothing is allowed to stand between you and your goal.
        In the end if you are both a activist and scientist your passion will overwhelm your pragmatism.
        Stop think reflect can you shrug and walk away? Or have your views on AGW become a obsession consuming you?
        have a good evening
        michael

      • jpaullanier: those you refer to as mainstream climate scientists need to actually do some science and have proof that bad things will happen if things continue as they have been. The science is not settled and has been heavily politicized. None of those “scientists” predicted the 18 year pause, and still have not come up with a coherent explanation for it. It is clear that those favoring the theory of catastrophic climate change don’t really know what they are talking about and are trying to get government policy instituted on the basis of pure speculation. Ignoring actual science or speculation is not a crime. You would need to show damage from the specific target’s actions in violation of a law on the books for there to be a crime.
        If Exxon was guilty of breaking the law by collecting, selling and shipping oil, so too would all the other oil companies. Why are they just picking on ExxonMobil?
        I would also like to see which political party all these Attorney’s General belong to. My guess is that they would mostly, if not all, be Democrats. If so, that would indicate this is more a political tactic and not one based on rule of law. And think of the consequences if Republican state AGs took the same tack on their favored policies? It cannot be said in the present age that anyone will be surprised by an American Inquisition because media and communications technology will (have already) given us lots of advance notice. We at least have the opportunity to shut it down before it starts.

      • jpaullanier April 14, 2016 at 1:08 am
        dbstealey:
        This is not a general discussion on the validity of AGW, and I am not going to contribute to your hijacking of the question under discussion by responding to any of your posts.

        There ya go again. “This is not a general discussion on the validity”…
        Actually, it is. It’s about a group of agw activists persuading state A.G. to begin investigations on whether or not they knew agw was a “RISK”!
        A risk is not a certainty. Thus the validity of cagw is very, very much in play. So are you going to answer dbstealey ? Look, if you had a good data you would have used it just needle dbstealey. Come on. Don’t be shy
        michael

      • Bill McKibbon is trying to bully and force people’s behavior, not by persuasion and free speech and the political process, but by subverting legal and political processes, by playing on the natural aversion to controversy of large companies like Exxon, and by smears, dirty tricks, harassment and intimidation. Bill is, in every sense of the meaning, a Climate Scientologist.
        JPaulLanier, an attitude like yours implies that it cannot be possible for an entire subset of science research to become tendentious and politically corrupt. IF it’s possible, in any way shape or form, that would already invalidate your argument. But there is ample evidence to show that for many of these science clowns like Mann and Trenberth, pulling huge, important meanings out of tiny signals in an ocean of noise, who use computer models to erroneously predict the future but then treat those predictions like gospel, while still using adequate weasel words to cover their own asses, we are seeing this corruption unfold right before our eyes. The mainstream of climate science now has taxpayer money going to fund research into “feminine glacier” narratives for God’s sake. The IPCC is not a scientific organization, it’s a tendentious political association. The people who cannot accept that what you call mainstream climate science is off the rails, corrupt, worse than useless, and in fact, little more than a new public sector interest group, protecting its own rice bowl are the real “deniers.”

      • Mickey Reno:
        Bill McKibbon is trying to bully and force people’s behavior, not by persuasion and free speech and the political process, but by subverting legal and political processes…
        I don’t agree with that. Of course McKinnon and other AGW activists seek to use the investigation of ExxonMobil to their advantage. Both sides seek to influence public opinion to the maximum degree possible. That’s just free speech. I suspect release of documents by ExxonMobil will result in continued efforts by both sides to persuade the public, regulators, and elected officials.
        JPaulLanier, an attitude like yours implies that it cannot be possible for an entire subset of science research to become tendentious and politically corrupt. IF it’s possible, in any way shape or form, that would already invalidate your argument.
        My argument here is:
        (1) The closed meeting of AGW activists does not constitute anything illegal, unethical, suspicious, or unusual;
        (2) It cannot be equated with the investigation of ExxonMobil;
        (3) Behavior of climate scientists in their research work is irrelevant to the argument.

      • Agreed asybot!
        I’ve noticed that tendency too, where in several online discussions, for alarmist religious faithful to decry any commenters in opposition to their religion as ‘science deniers’. A claim the CAGW devotees are unable to prove except by usually incorrect belief pronouncements regarding their allegedly unassailable imaginary consensus.
        consensus consensus consensus they chant. Completely ignorant that their chant is false science or anti-science and great evil is done by that insistence.
        Science is never about or derived from consensus.

      • “JPaulLanier, an attitude like yours implies that it cannot be possible for an entire subset of science research to become tendentious and politically corrupt. IF it’s possible, in any way shape or form, that would already invalidate your argument.”
        It’s already happened in the field of nutrition

      • JPL – “A skeptic does not reject scientific evidence out of hand, nor does a skeptic accept unquestionably the various conspiracy theories which are repeated incessantly.”
        It is called Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.
        From the NY Courts – Jury Instructions – https://www.nycourts.gov/judges/cji/1-General/CJI2d.Credibility.pdf
        Accept in Whole or in Part (Falsus in Uno)
        If you find that any witness has intentionally testified falsely as to any material fact, you may disregard that witness’s entire testimony. Or, you may disregard so much of it as you find was untruthful, and accept so much of it as you find to have been truthful and accurate.
        2 Credibility factors
        There is no particular formula for evaluating the truthfulness and accuracy of another person’s statements or testimony. You bring to this process all of your varied experiences. In life, you frequently decide the truthfulness and accuracy of statements made to you by other people. The same factors used to make those decisions, should be used in this case when evaluating the testimony.
        In General
        Some of the factors that you may wish to consider in evaluating the testimony of a witness are as follows:
        Did the witness have an opportunity to see or hear the
        events about which he or she testified?
        Did the witness have the ability to recall those events accurately?
        Was the testimony of the witness plausible and likely to be true, or was it implausible and not likely to be true?
        Was the testimony of the witness consistent or inconsistent with other testimony or evidence in the case?
        Did the manner in which the witness testified reflect upon the truthfulness of that witness’s testimony?
        To what extent, if any, did the witness’s background, training, education, or experience affect the believability of that witness’s testimony?
        Did the witness have a bias, hostility or some other attitude that affected the truthfulness of the witness’s testimony?

        These ‘Climate Scientists’ have been called out for their numerous lies and falsehoods. We have every right to reject the story they tell by legal reasoning.

      • DD More:
        If you find that any witness has intentionally testified falsely as to any material fact, you may disregard that witness’s entire testimony. Or, you may disregard so much of it as you find was untruthful, and accept so much of it as you find to have been truthful and accurate.
        There are true skeptics, including Judith Curry and others, who demand evidence, regardless of which “side” is making a claim and regardless of previous conclusions from a particular scientist. That is how the scientific method proceeds. Of course a person’s previous actions suggest how they may act in the future, but some people do learn from previous mistakes. I would also point out that you cannot dismiss an entire field of scientific inquiry simply because a few scientists have made predictions which later didn’t pan out.

    • Excuse me. I was hoping that state attorney generals would enforce their state’s laws objectively. Engaging in lawfare in cooperation with narrow political activists while veiling that activism behind their office and the legal system is not a faithful execution of their office or the law whether we call it a campaign or collusion.

  3. In the picture above, it looks like his sign says “This Rump Temporarily Closed.” I think it ought to read “This Mind Temporarily Closed.”
    Good for the WSJ doing some investigative reporting on the greens. For too long they have functioned without scrutiny. Now shine a light on them and watch the scatter.

    • The green blob cannot withstand any real examination. Due to coalition building, the AGW advocates cannot cross the anti-nuke activists, so any real chance of a viable economy is foreclosed. Of course, the more radical greens seem to want economic collapse/population reduction.

    • “This Rump Temporarily Closed” That’s one way of dealing with the emissions of green house gases.
      “This Mind Temporarily Closed” I see nothing temporary about it.

      • “I see nothing temporary about it.”
        Now, now. One must always allow for someone to find Grace and repent of their sins. Even if their sins are secular. 😉

    • Its how they roll. Watching these eco shmoos collude to lobby Obama to close fishing grounds off the east coast, and turn them into marine monuments, revealed they do collude, as was discovered in emails. All the climate nuts are anti fish nuts.

  4. I’d like to see a lock out and shutdown of fossil fuel entities so a deal can be negotiated with the government (real quick).

    • I’d like to see a lock out and shutdown of fossil fuel entities so a deal can be negotiated with the government (real quick).
      It would be a good idea if it could be done in one concerted move.
      Just imagine the uproar on Monday when fossil fuels stopped shipping on the previous Friday. No Cars, no electricity, no heat, no…
      Lesson learned by all.

  5. There is a corrupt organization that assists every “green” initiative including 350.org and probably the other above mentioned activists as well.
    This organization is also moving into renewables, maybe the aim for them is to dominate renewable energy like they once dominated oil energy. I’m sure renewables are not covered by the Sherman Act.
    I wrote about them in my blog. Worth a good read. If you find a “green” or “sustainable” organization that is not funded by them let me know. They probably fund the funders so one needs to research the whole fund chain.
    https://thedemiseofchristchurch.com
    https://thedemiseofchristchurch.com/2015/06/18/that-dreaded-fossil-fuel-supporting-deniers-and-sceptics/
    Please comment.
    Cheers
    Roger

  6. I’d like to see that turd stand between me and the gas pump when I need to fill up. The little commie will be in for a wakeup call about what’s important in life.

  7. “In Wednesday’s filing, Exxon’s lawyers say the company has confirmed for more than a decade that it sees the risks of climate change, and that it has publicly advocated for a carbon tax as the best way to regulate carbon emissions.”
    exxon wants a carbon tax.
    i’ll be looking for ways to keep my dollar away from them.

    • If I owned a large amount of Exxon stock, I would be talking to a lawyer about suing Exxon for abandoning their fiduciary responsibility to stock holders. Calling for a carbon tax that will either come out of profits, or will increase prices and effectively reduce sales, serves to dilute the value of company stock. In addition, if carbon-tax proceeds are used to subsidize green energy companies enough to make them competitive with Exxon, that will also serve to reduce stock prices. Exxon would be effectively subsidizing its own competition. Exxon has to walk a tightrope here. It’s a catch-22 situation where they are damned by stockholders if they surrender to climate-change advocates’ demands, and damned by environmentalists if they don’t.

      • A carbon tax penalizes the competition (coal) more than it does oil, and will give Big Oil a virtual monopoly in the energy marketplace. The carbon tax helps Exxon bit time.

      • I thought a carbon tax gets paid by those that RELEASE the carbon. A sizable portion of Oil goes into the petrochemical industry. since most of the outputs like plastics and lubricants don’t get burned they wouldn’t be subject to a carbon tax.

      • We had a carbon tax here in Australia and all it did was make power more expensive and increased the profits of the power companies. Many supporters claim the carbon tax actually reduced emissions. What fail to tell you is that during the carbon tax years, industry went, and is continuing, to go off-shore. Latest white-ware goods maker, Electrolux, is moving operations to Thailand, one reason cited was energy costs, even though we no longer have a carbon tax. Go figure!
        Car will leave Australia this year.

  8. Exxon absolutely supports carbon taxes, as do all oil and gas producers. Aside from the cut they’ll get from administering the taxes, they just add the tax to the price paid, for example, at the pump. Carbon taxes are paid by the consumer. No harm done to the producer!

      • Stephen Rasey
        Based on history since Lenin said that 100 years or so ago, its the assorted communists / radical socialists and other left wing authoritarians in over 100 countries around the world that have managed to strangle themselves with the various ropes we capitalists managed to sell them.
        If you know of any eager green/red totalitarians who are in the market, please let me know – I’ll be happy to sell them some of the new-and-improved self coiling line we recently developed. To paraphrase Lenin, the world is full of useful idiots…

      • “The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.”
        What Lenin meant was that the communists will need to buy the rope from capitalists, because communist rope won’t be fit to hang anybody.

  9. How about Civilization closed due to environmentalists lying about climate chaos.
    #backtomudhuts.

  10. The trouble with McKibben et al is that they want to turn the Western Economies into Ethiopian look a likes. More drought and famine in the east of Ethiopia which sadly is normal in both the eastern desert adjacent to Somalia and the western desert areas as well. Too bad we didn’t spend some of the climatastrophy money on aid instead of funding well off western climatroughs.
    Who will provide aid, how will aid get there when there are no fossil fuels?
    Well, lunch break is over, so back to the tractor to put some dust and DPM’s into the air to nucleate some rain. 😉
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Oh, and speaking of grant trawlers, The West Coast Ocean and Hypoxia Science Panel want your money. Heard Pederson from the University of Victoria on CBC at lunch (Canadian Broadcasting Commune). They have been pushing governments for more money to support the West Coast Ocean Acidification and Hypoxia Science Panel. Sorry for the desmog reference. There are references from the three states on the west coast plus BC. More study is not a bad thing. However, they appear to be working backwards from the conclusion it is fossil fuel/human caused. Some of the dead zones may be caused by run off from nutrients but the study says they may be a result of deep ocean upwelling. More study required. Fair enough but Pederson in particular says the solution is implementation of COP21. Hmmm. More McKibbenesque solutions – you – not me actions. I wonder what they run their research vessels on?
    http://www.desmog.ca/2016/04/05/immediate-action-needed-save-pacific-northwest-ocean-acidification-scientists
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/01/160111135622.htm

    • Acidification began around 1750 (according to NOAA), a hundred years before CO2 increase became even marginally measurable. CO2 increases biota, which in turn outputs more carbonic acid. (Fortunately weak, and acts as a buffer.) We have added perhaps (and other qualifiers) 10% to CO2 content down to biota level.
      But I suspect the bulk of it is the 3 Ds. Dredging, Drainage, and Dumping. It does appear to be worse along the coasts, particularly those of developing nations. But that should sharply abate as those nations become affluent enough to enter their positindustrial stage.
      CO2 effect will, of course, increase, but at a slower rate than other larger effects decrease. I.e., we are on the good the cost-benefit attrition game. Also, oceanic pH whipsaws as much as temperatures do, so there is a lot of adaptability built into the system.

  11. would love to see mckibbens face if all the oil and gas producers just said , ye , you are right, we are shutting down for good from tomorrow . he is just another middle class eco mentalist clinging onto something that gives his empty life meaning while suffering delusions he is saving the world.

    • McKibben must enjoy eliminating people of color.
      He doesn’t want them to improve their quality of life even enough to exist.
      “Get these peasants out of my sight…No let them die” says McKibben.

      • The real trouble is that McKibben _does_not_care_about_color_ in his efforts to lower living standards of _everybody_ ! If he and his ilk were attempting to undo the harm done by the so-called “Civil Rights” movement (a cancerous outgrowth of the “labor” movement) and return the country, and ultimately the world, to the natural and prosperous political order of the 1880-1900 era, that might be a good reason to find sympathy for the man. But I find nothing of the sort in what he says and does…..

  12. OMG!! Exxon knew that the climate changes?? Oh the humanity!! /sarc .. incase someone doesn’t recognize the sarcasm.
    Bill McKibben, I know you read this blog. Perhaps you could tell us how the climate is changing that has you so alarmed. I’ve asked you before on a previous blog that you posted on, but no reply. Yet another surprise.

  13. The New York Attorney General and all his buddies are simple neo-fascists. As anybody knows with half a brain, the science is not settled, much less some imaginary consensus. Are there illegal payments from the Rockefeller Foundation finding their way into the bank accounts of these legal miscreants? How many other foundations are dedicating millions of dollars to the cause? Remember the huge award that Dr J. Hansen received from the Heinz foundation for being the scientific mouthpiece for liberal global warming interests?
    It is all about politics and money. The two go together.

    • honestly, all this references to 2nd world war germany on this blog are quite unpleasant and completely off the mark. I wish there was a bit of moderation direction on this.

      • Fascism didn’t start with Germany, nor did it end there. And speaking English with an American accent doesn’t magically make the man expressing fascist sentiments or executing fascist policies a non-fascist.

      • benben: I didn’t mention Germany.
        Fascism is the brain child of Benito Mussolini, the famous Dictator of Italy just prior to and during most of WWII. Hitler loved Mussolini, Il Duce, and his Fascist government. Mussolini’s party was named the National Fascist Party. Both Fascism and Nazism are left wing creations. In spite of what some historians mistakenly say, Fascism and National Socialism (Nazi’s) were not right wing. Both feature government control of the means of productions and the press, whereas right wing economies feature less government control and freedom of the press.
        Fascism and National Socialism (Nazi’s) feature autocratic and even dictatorial heads of government which is by definition left wing. Both political philosophies are cousins of socialism. Note the Hitler called his socialist party the National Socialist Party. This was not by accident.
        Please don’t blame me because we have politicians in this country that are adopting the ways of the autocratic socialist (Fascist) governments. Abrogating the First Amendment by silencing the speech of our citizenry is what the New York Attorney General and others are dedicated in doing. That is Fascist, or even Nazi-like behavior, World War II not withstanding.

      • 1) Accurate labeling is essential in any endeavor.
        2) Fascism started long before WWII.
        3) Fascism did not end with WWII.
        4) In the WWII period, there were many fascist countries, Germany was just one of them.
        5) It never ceases to amaze me how the trolls whine whenever the spotlight is shown on them.

      • So much knowledge of history here! Perhaps Bob would like to explain to us how fascism relates to the new york attorney general (e.g. idolization of the strong leader, violence), instead of just whining about being called out for using extreme and unpleasant language.
        And yes, fascism being left wing. That clearly shows your amazing grasp of history and political philosophy /s

      • Hi benben,
        No one here is comparing New York A.G. to some German WW-2 figure. Heavens no. But a more fitting profile match for the time period and political-social leanings would be Father Tiso and Dr. Vojtech Bela Tuka of Slovakia.
        I hope that clears things up somewhat
        michael

      • Strong, autocratic control of a private economy is fascism.
        With 615 Alphabet Agencies telling Americans how to live, I’d say we have easily surpassed the 1930s Germans in strong, autocratic central control.

      • Yeah, it sucks when people point out that your pet theories are really similar to those that killed millions of people in the past. I’d want to censor such communication, too, were I an authoritarian bent on subjugating the people of the world, too.

      • benben,
        You are as ignorant of history as politics and science.
        I just watched a pretty good Russian movie on YouTube (White Tiger; English subtitles. A quick search will find it).
        The Russians’ enemy was repeatedly referred to as “Fascists”.
        I know you can’t learn. But maybe readers with a mental maturity over twelve will be interested.

      • dbstealey April 13, 2016 at 11:38 pm
        White Tiger, I watched it awhile back, I agree something worth viewing.
        michael

    • Remember the huge award that Dr J. Hansen received from the Heinz foundation
      Which reminds me… Sec. John Kerry, who

      fatuously asserted that “climate change can now be considered the world’s largest weapon of mass destruction, perhaps even the world’s most fearsome weapon of mass destruction.’’ (source)

      married well. Teresa Heinz Kerry

      After her husband’s death [1991], Teresa turned down offers to seek election to her husband’s [Penn. Sen. John Heinz III] Senate seat. She instead became heir to the Heinz Ketchup fortune and chairman of The Howard Heinz Endowment and the Heinz Family Philanthropies, one of the nation’s large private foundations

      http://www.biography.com/people/teresa-heinz-kerry-11718235#background-and-education

    • Fascism as a movement was started by Benito Mussolini. Check your history. Even Wikipedia recognizes this.
      Like other political systems, fascism, socialism, communism, capitalism all rely for their basic left/right positioning on the economics of the model. The socialism family calls for larger, stronger governments. Economic control is basic to socialism, and so is control of the press. The New York Attorney General is seeking to cast aside the First Amendment, and this is part and parcel of a fascist viewpoint.
      Plus, the AG’s are agitating to make Exxon PAY HUGE DAMAGES for having an opinion. Note the control of resources the AG’s seek. Exxon does not have to publish its opinions about climate change, abortion, or anything else. A corporation has the same First Amendment rights as an individual.
      Without a doubt, the AG’s are embarking on a fascist agenda. In my book that makes them a bunch of fascists.

      • that’s all very interesting bob! Let’s see what wikipedia actually has to say: “Fascism opposes liberalism, Marxism and anarchism and is usually placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum.”
        What I am saying is that people here throw around terms like fascism and marxism as if they are interchangeable. And I guess they are, if you don’t care about how the world actually is and just want to shock people by expressing your displeasure in terms that are borderline acceptable but still very unpleasant. But please don’t pretend that you actually know what fascism is, or that what happens now has anything to do with fascism. It’s very distasteful.
        To all the other people here referencing Mussolini. Sure. But he was almost equally distasteful, so the point remains. Don’t use fascism so lightly. Keep things civil. Thank you.

      • benben this just political revenge. your not dumb but merely on the other side in the issue. You may feel smug about it. but I caution you these things tend to end badly for both sides, You spoke earlier of “so much knowledge of history” Yes and that knowledge fills me with fear. There is a American saying be careful what you pray for you might get it.
        I will leave you with much older example of what can happen when you start co-opting your government to settle your personal vendettas or advance your personal social goals.
        It is from The History of the Peloponnesian War by Thucydides
        [In this chaotic world] words had to change their ordinary meaning and to take on new signification. Reckless audacity came to be considered the ‘courage of a loyal ally’; prudent hesitation, ‘an excuse for cowardice’; moderation was held to be a cloak for unmanliness; ability to see all sides of a question was inability to act on any. Frantic violence became the attribute of virility; paranoid plotting (was seen as) justifiable self-defence. The more extreme a man’s schemes, the more valuable an ally he seemed; anyone who opposed extremism was suspected of treachery. To succeed in a plot was to have a shrewd head, to divine a plot a still shrewder; but to try to provide against having to do either was to break up your party and to be afraid of your adversaries. To prevent an intended crime, or to plot a crime when it seemed likely to succeed, was equally valued, until even blood became a weaker tie than party, because those united by party loyalty were bound to dare everything without reserve. For such associations had not in view the blessings derivable from established institutions but were formed by ambition for their overthrow; and the confidence of their members in each other rested less on any religious sanction (of oath) than upon complicity in crime. The fair proposals of an adversary were met with jealous precautions by the stronger of the two, and not with a generous confidence. Revenge also was held of more value than self-preservation. Oaths of reconciliation, being only proffered on either side to meet an immediate difficulty, only held good so long as no other weapon was at hand; but when opportunity offered, he who first ventured to seize it and to take his enemy off his guard, thought this treacherous vengeance sweeter than an open reprisal, since success by treachery indicated superior intelligence. Indeed it is generally the case that men are readier to call rogues clever than simpletons honest, and are as ashamed of being the second as they are proud of being the first.”
        http://courses.missouristate.edu/ecarawan/Corcyra.html
        michael

      • benben,
        You are a true know-nothing. What you and Wikipedia believe to be ‘the right’ is nothing like what you claim.
        America was founded on individual liberty. None of the other systems you listed were — they are all State diktats.
        You know as little of this subject as you do of”climate science”™. If that offends you, perhaps you would like to post on a political blog instead.

      • benben, interesting that you should choose a badly-corrupted site like wiki to support your argument. Anyone to the right of che would be considered ‘conservative’ there.
        FAIL.

      • jpaullanier: those you refer to as mainstream climate scientists need to actually do some science and have proof that bad things will happen if things continue as they have been. The science is not settled and has been heavily politicized. None of those “scientists” predicted the 18 year pause, and still have not come up with a coherent explanation for it. It is clear that those favoring the theory of catastrophic climate change don’t really know what they are talking about and are trying to get government policy instituted on the basis of pure speculation. Ignoring actual science or speculation is not a crime. You would need to show damage from the specific target’s actions in violation of a law on the books for there to be a crime.
        If Exxon was guilty of breaking the law by collecting, selling and shipping oil, so too would all the other oil companies. Why are they just picking on ExxonMobil?
        I would also like to see which political party all these Attorney’s General belong to. My guess is that they would mostly, if not all, be Democrats. If so, that would indicate this is more a political tactic and not one based on rule of law. And think of the consequences if Republican state AGs took the same tack on their favored policies? It cannot be said in the present age that anyone will be surprised by an American Inquisition because media and communications technology will (have already) given us lots of advance notice. We at least have the opportunity to shut it down before it starts.

      • hmmm well, let’s just ignore DB, as always. ClimateOtter, of course I only referenced wikipedia because Bob himself did so first. the point is: please don’t reference incredibly unpleasant historical events. I’m sure you agree with that?
        And for bob to claim that fascism is a left wing thing is just bizarre. I don’t know how else to put it.

      • The point is: please don’t reference incredibly unpleasant historical events. I’m sure you agree with that?

        Do I really need to remind anyone here what happens to those who forget history? And yes, it also goes for those who simply ignore it or assume it can’t happen now.

      • “And for bob to claim that fascism is a left wing thing is just bizarre. I don’t know how else to put it.”
        Are you saying Mussolini wasn’t a socialist?
        Are you saying socialism isn’t “left wing”?
        Are you saying complete central control of the economy isn’t “left wing”?
        Indeed, “bizarre” is the correct term.

      • I am not sure if benben has ever been to School, he (or she) has several problems. First there is his problem of an ignorance of history. Indeed, Mussolini was the founder of Fascism. As I said, even Wikipedia got this right (even though benben took me out of context).
        Secondly, benben has not studied economics which plainly shows that Fascism is a left-wing model. The reasons are simple, but benben has chosen to not read or research the issue. Left Wing means more government (government control), repression of the press, and control of how people use (spend) their resources.
        The problem is that shallow thinking people are running from the fact that their outmoded socialists models (as Fascism) are artifacts of failed systems. Examples of left wing socialist and autocratic governments are Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, and Communist Soviet Union. Did I forget Communist China? The hallmark of these socialist models is autocratic rule. Socialists (and their cousins Fascism, Communism, National Socialism) are responsible for about one hundred million murders in the twentieth century.
        Look it up.
        Note that the New York Attorney General and his menacing minions are advocating the same Fascist programs that graced Mussolini, HItler, and Stalin’s regimes. They wants to kill the First Amendment, and wants to force payment of penalties because people disagree with him. That, folks, is Fascist.
        benben, just in case you still don’t get it, Fascism, Nazism, Communism are all children of Socialism. They are all left wing, and have the same or similar goals. Indeed, Mussolini’s father was a Socialist activist, and raised his son in that kind of household.

  14. Could Exxon and fellow oil suppliers offer what the environmentalist want?
    Perhaps arrange for a pause in the shipment of oil based products for a week or a fortnight to show true penitence to gia.
    Allow first responders to continue filling up with petrol/gas (fire/police/medics).
    I am sure the greens would say that renewable energy would cover the gap.
    Lets hope that there would not be too many unintended consequences such as folks storing gas causing additional fires, loss of output by factories, loss of green support when the public realise just how dependent we are upon fossil fuels.

    • Better yet, I think since the Virgin Islands brought this lawsuit, Exxon should stop shipping them petrol until this whole thing is sorted out.

    • “Allow first responders to continue filling up with petrol/gas (fire/police/medics).”
      Why? It makes a much better demonstration of the impact of cheap and effective energy if it is unbiased. Nobody is special. Not firemen, not hospitals. Turn it all off and see how many of the survivors still want to do stupid things with civilization.
      Yes, I know there really are people stupid enough to want to shut down all of civilization.

  15. And in consequence of this meeting, the US VI AG subpoenaed CEI. That is unquestionably a violation of 18USC241, which provides civil and criminal penalties for conspiring to deprive anyone of any constitutional rights, in this case the first amendment right to speak out against warmunism. Lets hope CEI hits back hard at Sen. Whitehouse, the US VI AG, and McKibben and Oreskes whom comspired to inspire them to these illegal acts.
    The Exxon ‘Mechants of Doubt’ thesis won’t fly either, because there was no evidence before Exxon adopted its current ‘go with the flow’ stance–and there still isn’t.

  16. As steverichards1984 suggested:
    “Perhaps arrange for a pause in the shipment of oil based products for a week or a fortnight to show true penitence to gia.”
    If Exxon really has to deal with this court procedure… do this…I think it might be effective.

  17. “It’s not really about Exxon.”
    Correct. It’s about a gross abuse of power, and an attack on democratic principles in the name of an ideology which is in its death-throes.

  18. We can no longer just sit by and ignore there radicals, They must be confronted, we must be in their face after eating garlic and sardines. We must be willing to be forceful. We tried to be polite, professional and scholarly and use fact and reason but we are dealing with a mob mentality. We are losing our country. Its time to grow a pair and stand up.

  19. Re-read “My 0ne-on-One with Bill McKibben and the comments, including McKibben’s comment. I can understand why he can be perceived as a ‘nice guy’. I’ve met others with the same AGW position and they would be seen a nice guys.
    However, on the subject of AGW, they are not nice guys, they are evil. What their policies will do to humanity will be worse than any events in prior history and they will go unpunished. If it was up to me…..
    Holdren, Edenhofer, and Figueres stated the reason and it has nothing to do with the environment/climate.

  20. What can be compared to the tobacco industry is the United Nations. Based on inductivism, United Nations has been pushing Climate change scare mongering.
    Here are the Final findings of the court in the racketeering lawsuit against the major cigarette manufacturers: The U.S. Government’s racketeering case against Big Tobacco
    I would like to rewrite the final findings of the court to illustrate that United Nations may be comparable to the Tobacco industry:
    Final Findings: (Fictional – for illustration):
    Based on the evidence presented in a hypothetical case against United Nations, the court may rule that:
    – United Nations knew for fifty years or more that CO2 is primarily a plant fertilizer, but repeatedly stated that CO2 caused adverse climate change. United Nations publicly distorted and maximized the hazards of CO2 for decades.
    – United Nations concealed and suppressed research data and other evidence showing CO2 has little effect on climate, and withheld information from the public and governments.
    – United Nations acted this way to maintain revenue by keeping people alarmed and attracting new supporters, to avoid liability, and prevent reformation of the United Nations.
    – United Nations falsely denied that they can and do control the information intended to create and sustain climate change alarmism.
    – United Nations falsely marketed and promoted CO2 emissions as harmful, to keep governments alarmed to sustain and increase the revenue to United Nations for administration of the climate funds and ridiculous and arbitrary projects financed by these funds.
    – From the 1980s to the present, United Nations, using different methods, have intentionally marketed CO2 as harmful to young people under the age of 21 in order to recruit “replacement alarmists” who would ensure the future economic viability of the United Nations.
    – United Nations publicly denied, while internally acknowledging, that energy poverty is hazardous and harmful to the poor.
    – At various times, United Nations attempted to, and did suppress and conceal scientific research relevant to their public and litigation positions.

  21. As if Bill McKibben isn’t bad enough, things aren’t getting any better on the Bernie Sanders front either folks. He stated recently that he now wants to completely kill fracking for oil and gas nationwide.
    http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/13/investing/bernie-sanders-wants-to-kill-fracking-oil/index.html.
    ‘”If we are serious about combating climate change, we need to put an end to fracking, not only in New York and Vermont, but all over this country,” Sanders said during a speech in Binghamton, New York this week.’
    Asuming he is serious about that (and I certainly hope he isn’t), he is insanely oblivious to the economic hit the U.S. would take if he succeeded in doing that. All in the name of combating a non-problem.
    God help us if he wins in November.

  22. A 1985 Environmental Science Text (Chiras, Benjamin/Cummins Publishing) in a short summary section on Air Pollution states– ”…. unfortunately, no one knows what the net effect of increasing particulates and carbon dioxide will be.“

    • Exxon has had neither.
      I very much doubt that they will be sued, not after the first appeal at any rate. Opens up a hole nobody wants to look down. Who’s next? Car manufacturers and consumers for aiding and abetting Exxon in their criminal activities? Governments for taking a cut (taxation) to overlook said criminal activity …
      These people, like Shukla, may come to find that this is one can of worms that they come to wish that they hadn’t opened.
      Let’s hope Al doesn’t get sentenced based upon his ‘knowing’ use of ‘Exxon product’. Al ‘Icarus’ Gore – man of the people (if ever they are allowed on one of his many aircraft).
      There is another element that a Judge would have to consider. Dating back to Magna Carta, one cannot introduce a law and then prosecute an entity for breaking that law prior to its introduction. So even if bed wetters managed to make ‘(Global Warming) scepticism’ illegal tomorrow then, under traditional Anglo Law, they could not prosecute any entity that knowingly ‘warmed the Earth’. Warming was not against the Law at the time the offense was committed.
      Ultimately, I believe that we are looking at ‘Last Chance Saloon’ levels of desperation among a ‘cult’ that would get off the Earth if only it would slow down enough.

  23. Exxon should use this opportunity to expose the fraud. They have many posts exposing how the left lies about them on their blog. I don’t see why they don’t sue these groups for slander. If their blog posts are accurate, they should sue for damages. Exxon should also host/fund nationally televised debates on climate change and fund an Open Source Temperature Reconstruction and Climate Model. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and Exxon has the resources to fight it.
    http://www.exxonmobilperspectives.com/
    http://www.exxonmobilperspectives.com/2015/12/02/exxonmobil-and-the-carbon-tax/
    http://www.exxonmobilperspectives.com/2015/12/02/exxonmobil-on-the-u-n-climate-talks/
    http://www.exxonmobilperspectives.com/2015/10/15/exxonmobils-commitment-to-climate-science/
    http://www.exxonmobilperspectives.com/2015/10/08/setting-the-record-straight-on-climate/

  24. None has been as aggressive as New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, who subpoenaed Exxon in November seeking information about the company’s research on climate change over several decades. Exxon hasn’t challenged that subpoena, partly because a New York law called the Martin Act gives Mr. Schneiderman wide latitude to investigate businesses for possible fraud or misrepresentation.

    I wish to God every gas company would pull out of New York and force New York to pay the price for their stupidity. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you. I say send progressive New York back to the horse and buggy era.

    • Absolutely, this thing needs to be brought down to the Skinnerian-Pavlovian level. It may be the only way to knock these idiots off their high horses and force them to at least pay some attention to the real world.

  25. After her husband’s death [1991], Teresa turned down offers to seek election to her husband’s [Penn. Sen. John Heinz III] Senate seat. She instead became heir to the Heinz Ketchup fortune and chairman of The Howard Heinz Endowment and the Heinz Family Philanthropies, one of the nation’s large private foundations

    Ever notice how it is never the person that makes the money or wealth that joins these idiotic campaigns? It is always the trust fund children and heirs that get exploited by all these rent seeking Organizations. The case of Rockefeller attacking Exxon is right out of Atlas Shurgged, Hank Rearden’s Wife and younger Brother come to mind, Lillian and Philip.

  26. McCarthyism is McCarthyism is McCarthyism.
    We need to call “the practice of making unfair allegations or using unfair investigative techniques, especially in order to restrict dissent or political criticism” for what it is.
    Just because it’s Exxon the AGs are going after in no way legitimizes their vindictive, unconstitutional behavior.
    Shame on them.

    • Take a look at “Blacklisted by History” by M. Stanton Evans. If you do, you’re in for quite a surprise (as I was when I read it).

  27. benben:
    “And yes, fascism being left wing. That clearly shows your amazing grasp of history and political philosophy /s”
    You really ARE a ditz. Read Goldberg’s “Liberal Fascism” and get your mind right.
    Then, after flinging snot as you did above, you say:
    “To all the other people here referencing Mussolini. Sure. But he was almost equally distasteful, so the point remains. Don’t use fascism so lightly.*** Keep things civil. Thank you.:***”
    What a sanctimonious and hypocritical little twit.

  28. ERFFFTTTTHHTHSPLAT!!!
    Puter screen…dripping with coffee!!! I thought the sign said, “This Rump temporarily closed because…”

  29. Du Pont, the prime beneficiary of the Montreal Protocol, spent years pretending to resist a ban on CFCs.
    Do anything you want, but please don’t throw me us that CFC-free briar patch,” they said, with crocodile tears welling in their eyes.
    Republicans pretended they were opposed to the protocol…until they ratified it.
    * * * * *
    “That this occurred during the antienvironmental spasm of the Late Reagan administration was truly unexpected (unless, of course, the fear of DuPont’s European competitors is true.)”
    -Carl Sagan, Billion & Billions
    * * * * *
    The “fear of DuPont’s European competitors”, especially in France, was that the U.S. government was pushing the protocol not to save the planet, but to give DuPont a competitive edge.
    When the treaty was ratified, DuPont came out of the briar patch with a shiny new patent on HCFCs.
    Sagan praised DuPont and Thatcher for saving the planet!
    The U.S. government waged an international war against the hemp industry for the same reason – to protect DuPont’s patent on Nylon.
    * * * *
    “In Wednesday’s filing, Exxon’s lawyers say the company has confirmed for more than a decade that it sees the risks of climate change, and that it has publicly advocated for a carbon tax as the best way to regulate carbon emissions.”
    * * * *
    Fool me once, shame on you.
    Fool me twice, errr…umm…you can’t get fooled again.

    • Dumbass conspiracy crap. Dupont quit resisting because the lib press beat them up over Freon. “Chemical company destroying the planet” headlines. It was the beginning of corporations not resisting the Green Blob.

  30. Are the grants drying up, so they think they can fool everyone and rip-off the shareholders they pretend to be concerned about? If they used the courts to leave Exxon a husk, then they would keep raiding each oil and energy company. This is about money and power, using that skunk of climate change as an excuse. They are modern pirates exploiting the legal system.
    Look at the way they talk. Potential this and perhaps that.
    What about if Exxon took them to court and investigated the AGs link to climate scamming. Discovery might actually be very embarrassing.

  31. What is most galling about this is their glib self-assured grandiosity that they can manipulate state AGs and the DOJ to their ends. And indeed they did, Kamala Harris in CA is already busy at work. Senators and Congressmen are talking about about and the DOJ is entertaining it.
    This is what a fascist state and society looks like. The elites colluding with govt to use the power of the state to create their Utopia. It’s the worse kind illiberal, corrupt and morally bankrupt approach to governing and creating “change” in a free society one can imagine.
    Saddest? Instead of being good honest human beings and admitting that maybe they have been wrong about some of this, based on the data and science which keeps emerging, instead they double down and just go straight to immoral tactics. They are actually evil.

  32. I have a couple of suggestions:
    1. Exxon should ban them from their products–for say a month. Nobody that has filed this complaint is allowed any Exxon product (or any product derived from Exxon) period. After 1 month, I’ll bet they will be singing a different tune.
    2. All environmental close minded fanatics are required to spend a year in a developing country with no support structure for clean water, medicines, hospitals, transportation, energy OR any modern convenience they take for granted–including clothing. Cannibalistic areas are preferred but not required.
    After a year in a mud hut, eeking out an existence of hauling dirty perhaps cholera laden water (maybe as much as 3 miles away) while being exposed to mass amounts of wood smoke due to cooking and heating fires in a small contained area…let’s see how well they hold onto their little view of the world.
    It will never happen because these types of people never follow what they preach. They are too narrow minded to look at the larger picture and are too trapped in their own reality and too idle minded to realize how good they actually have it. But make no mistake. They know which side of the bread is buttered and despite what they may preach, they will never forget it.
    What I hope Exxon does and the other energy companies do is show these idiots exactly how fragile their modern world is and how quickly their feet of clay can crack and rupture.
    And I should strike “environmental” in suggestion number 2. Because I am an environmentalist–I believe in being responsible but unlike the fanatics I know human beings are part of the environment and not inherently evil (which is as far as I will go. Because I’ll start launching into the similarities of humans are the enemy of the Earth with the concept of original sin).

  33. One of the side benefits of the historic climate con is the more efficient identification of media and organizational bias across the landscape. Think about it, how often does this scenario set up to observe this at local, national, and international levels simultaneously? I’ll stick with the WSJ and WUWT while taking in the view.

  34. Mumbles McGuirck April 13, 2016 at 12:46 pm
    In the picture above, it looks like his sign says “This Rump Temporarily Closed.”

    I’ve heard of kids who didn’t get their way trying to hold their breath until they do.
    What does he expect to accomplish by closing his rump?
    And just how long could he do it? He’s already full of….uh….it.

  35. “The game of science is, in principle, without end. He who decides one day that scientific statements do not call for any further test, and that they can be regarded as finally verified, retires from the game.”
    ― Karl Popper

    • That “science is settled” meme should be one of the key teaching moments for millennials of what is wrong with the Climate Con. It draws heavily on them.

  36. Speaking of collusion….
    WSJ
    Inside the Fall of SunEdison, Once a Darling of the Clean-Energy World:
    The Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission are now investigating whether management misled the public, as the company began to struggle, by giving investors a more positive picture of SunEdison’s finances than was circulated internally, according to people familiar with the matter.

  37. Of course, this effort is being funded by the Rockefeller Family Fund, which of course would not exist, nor the numerous highly paid positions managing that fund, had it not been for the largess of John D. Rockefeller, the founder of Standard Oil and therefore Exxon. J.D. must be turning in his grave.

  38. Sounds like there is racketeering and collusion but not on the part of ExxonMobil. False testimony is a crime as is filing false criminal complaints.

Comments are closed.