Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Exxon has just challenged attempts by Al Gore’s climate witch hunt to “investigate” them, by demanding to know what crime they are supposed to have committed.
Exxon Fires Back at Climate-Change Probe
Argues subpoena represents unwarranted fishing expedition into its records that violates its constitutional rights
Exxon Mobil Corp. went to court Wednesday to challenge a government investigation of whether the company conspired to cover up its understanding of climate change, a sign the energy company is gearing up for a drawn-out legal battle with environmentalists and officials on the politically charged issue.
The company filed court papers in Texas seeking to block a subpoena issued in March by the attorney general of the U.S. Virgin Islands, one of several government officials pursuing Exxon. Wednesday’s filing argues that the subpoena is an unwarranted fishing expedition into Exxon’s internal records that violates its constitutional rights.
“The chilling effect of this inquiry, which discriminates based on viewpoint to target one side of an ongoing policy debate, strikes at protected speech at the core of the First Amendment,” the filing says.
Exxon also dismisses the notion that there is any suggestion of a crime, saying Attorney General Claude Earl Walker “issued the subpoena without the reasonable suspicion required by law and based on an ulterior motive to silence those who express views on climate change with which they disagree.”
A request for comment to the U.S. Virgin Islands’ attorney general’s office wasn’t immediately returned.
Read more: http://www.wsj.com/articles/exxon-fires-back-at-climate-change-probe-1460574535
To date, most companies seem to have been happy to simply pay a bit of Danegeld, and get on with business, when unfairly targeted by green campaigners, rather than engage in a costly and potentially damaging PR battle with groups of fanatics who mostly don’t matter in the long run.
But a government backed investigation, with the possible threat of future RICO charges, is far more serious than a simple PR attack on a company’s corporate image. Exxon appears to have courageously decided to stand their ground, to put an end to this nonsense once and for all – a strategy which may lead them to challenge the increasingly shaky scientific basis of the entire climate scare.
Good for XOM. I would have expected it from his predecessor, but not from TRex.
Lee Raymond was a no-nonsense hard-nosed kind of guy. Refused to buckle under to Venezuela and sued their *ss, as I recall.
Think I’ll start backing Exxon by Buying my fuel from them exclusively
#SUPPORTEXXON
#BUYEXXONGAS
To those (of us) in Britain, Exxon own Esso and Mobil – so I will start buying my fuel from them, and will go out of my way to do so. I advise others in the UK to do the same.
This needs Exxon to bring out their hard ball and take the warmist scum bags on. In court the evidence of collusion by the warmist will be quickly uncovered.
Here is an example:
Chevron was involved in another legal battle in Ecuador. Where it is facing an $18 billion verdict due to the decades of pollution inflicted upon the Amazon region by Texaco, whom Chevron bought in 2001. (This was reduced to a $9 billion claim in US courts)
In February 2011, a judge in Ecuador issued an $18bn judgment against Chevron in a lawsuit.
The whole case against Chevron was rigged by the Ecuadorian government and a low life legal firm in the USA. Chevron play pussy with the extortion/ shake down and got nowhere but deeper in the mud, so they then decided to pull out the big guns and fight the extorters in an American court -Guess what Chevron WON BIG.
A New York City lawyer, Steven Donziger, and Ecuadorean lawyers corrupted the case in Ecuador by submitting fraudulent evidence, coercing a judge and arranging to write the multibillion-dollar judgment themselves by promising $500,000 to the Ecuadorean judge to rule in their favor.
Of course that’s just the Texaco side of the argument. The other side is quite different even if US ‘justice’ allows seemingly only one side to be presented in court:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/karen-hinton/us-chevron-ruling-oneside_b_4905037.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/karen-hinton/false-testimony-forced-ecuador_b_5600985.html
“Chevron had committed to paying Guerra at least $1 million (See page 160.) for his testimony, with another million likely to come if one counts the cash and benefits going forward….Under oath, Guerra admitted he “exaggerated” the evidence to jack up the money or, in his words, “for the purpose of bettering or improving my (financial) position” with Chevron. (See pages 55-57.) ”
So do those allegations of bribery thence come from a bribed witness? Well “the huge sums Chevron is paying Guerra go way beyond ‘reasonable’ compensation, as allowed by New York law, according to this affidavit written and filed pro-bono by a leading legal ethics expert at the University of California/Irvine School of Law.”
I hope the oil companies don’t piss in your chips one day because you have zero chance of redress in US courts unless the company just unilaterally decides to shoulder the blame the way BP did over the gulf spill thereby letting Halliburton off the hook. And the reason they did that…..because the US president made a big thing about this being a ‘British’ multinational and threatened financial retribution outwith the court system.
huffingtonpost? That has even less credibility than does SkS.
Why don’t you come back when you have some evidence that isn’t made up.
The corruption on the part of Ecuador has been well documented, deal with it.
Even with tha, EXXON is still playing a purely defensive, obstructionist, game, like tobacco companies did in the past.
This is far from enough and could make them appear guilty in the public’s eye.
EXXON, and other oil, gas and coal companies are still playing the green game, trying to win green cred with token initiatives. It will not work against the overwhelming power wielded by the warmists.
EXXON, and other oil, gas and coal companies, need to go on the offensive and actively work to debunk the AGW myth/meme before they are cornered
If the prosecution brings a case is not the onus on them to provide the evidence prove the case? Or is AGW now considered to be legal just because the United Nations says it is?
Seems some in the US did not learn the lessons from McCarthyism.
The lesson of McCarthyism is don’t go after leftists/communists because the media will crucify you.
“EXXON, and other oil, gas and coal companies, need to go on the offensive and actively work to debunk the AGW myth/meme before they are cornered” They should have been doing that, from long ago. I think it’s disgusting that they haven’t. With their deep pockets, it would have been easy to teach the public about how just how shoddy the CO2 catastrophist “science” is. Heck, when I was a kid, a local gas station hired a girl to strut around in a bikini and high heels. If Exxon Mobil wanted to get a message out, it have lots of venues for doing so, and all the $green stuff$ that it could possibly want.
My suggestion is a shareholder lawsuit against Exxon Mobil management. As I just posted elsewhere:
I find statements such as “The Left is on the cusp of losing the CAGW war against science…” so naive as to be chilling. IMSHO, Exxon Mobil management should be hit with a shareholder lawsuit, during which a discovery process should be able to ferret out reports to management on the state of climate science. And I don’t just mean alarmist stuff, I mean the sort of papers that get discussed at WUWT every day. I’m not a lawyer, but I should think that due diligence regarding oil wells that might be 30 year endeavors demands that the regulatory environment be considered. And that demands, in turn, that the science that presumably informs impending and threatened regulation. If I were Exxon Mobil CEO, I’d probably want a thorough report at least every 3-5 years.
Now that even US Senators are calling for RICO lawsuits against “climate change deniers”, hopefully CO2 realists will up their games, and go after the people who are playing along with the climate nonsense. Or should we wait until AFTER Watts, Lindzen, Happer, et. al. are on trial, before we collectively muster an aggressive counter-attack??
Stimulating discussions on a blog are nice, and all. AFAICT, though, they don’t amount to much in the real world, where people who are happy to take away your democratic rights are scheming at the very top levels of very powerful governments. According to Monckton in the video I linked to, only the Chinese prevented a step towards world government via the Copenhagen Accord.
I don’t think relying on entities like the Chinese government for our democratic rights, and on happy thoughts such as “The Left is on the cusp of losing the CAGW war against science” to keep government RICO attack dogs away from our heroes like Watts, Happer, et.al., is very smart. I suggest we pay close attention to Europeans who are discovering that many of their rights have been handed over to the EU, and how hard their struggles will now be to take those rights back. Better never to hand them over.
European oil and GAS companies are even going along with the climate alarmist view as a means of getting rid of competition from ‘dirty’ coal. They run the risk of being caught in the middle!
They may sit in silence as government zealots comes after their competitors.
Who will come to their defense when the government comes for them?
Where have I heard that before….?
Seem to remember it did not end well for the zealots then too.
Ian: no, it did not end well for the socialist zealots, then, but they managed to kill 60,000,000 people of all sorts.
I have to laugh that the Norwegian Sovereign Wealth Fund which is all full of petrodollars is now going to divest themselves of companies generating power from coal such as AES, Drax, and so forth. http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/e2e0fb40-022f-11e6-9cc4-27926f2b110c.html
The reason I don’t use my last name is that my employer has thrown themselves wholeheartedly into the green cause, actively campaigning for a carbon tax. The lawyer who tried to convince the environmental department it was a good idea literally talked about how much money it would make for us.
Ben, I’m in a similar boat. And if asked why I stay, I feel I’m in a position to influence the debate more where I am than bailing to a different job.
Same situation. Already lost part of career by presenting science in scientific EPA reports. Second whammy was having the nerve to object to bosses about when the data was altered, words removed to completely change the entire meaning.
Issue also came up in studies where I put in climate change disclaimers that climate change floods and other disasters ‘might’ occur but frequency and impact could not be scientifically determined since there is no historical basis. The agency then paid a $ million to a climate change company who came back and said the same thing … but I was the Bad person.
Expressing concern as to why several millions of funds for water testing support to municipalities (a real life threatening issue with real life measurable outcomes) was taken and diverted to 2nd grader coloring books for climate change.
Of course, objecting to the life size cardboard cut out of Bush dressed in a pink boa and other ‘attachments’ on our office floor did not go over well either.
I haven’t found other work.
..Now, maybe, skeptical scientists might get some some help from the “Big Bad Oil Industry” !! I’ve been waiting for my cheque for 5 years ! LOL /sarc off / ???
Kinda ironic how the corporate/industrial heirs of the Rockefeller family are battling with the financial and charitable heirs of the Rockefeller fortune.
“Danegeld” is an appropriate term. The green blob is parasitic, and removing their funding is a priority. A nice little countersuit under the Ku Klux Klan act, about using public authority to deprive someone of their civil rights would be in order.
The problem of course is that once you pay the Dane-geld you never get rid of the Dane.
If their CO2 emissions are a “crime” then the science showing the evidence of that “crime” must be produced.
This may become very interesting.
It is extremely easy to produce evidence of CO2 emissions.
“it is exremely easy to produce evidence of CO2” Yes, POOMA– but valid, relevant evidence is another thing.
evidence of CO2 emissions.
====================
Exxon isn’t supplying CO2. They are supplying CxHy. Hydrocarbons are not Carbon Dioxide.
One might as well argue that steel manufacturers should be sued because steel can be turned into knives and guns and hammers and screwdrivers. And knives and guns and hammers and screwdrivers may kill people in the future.
Roy,
CO2 emissions are one part, the link must be between CO2 emissions and the increase in temperature (as far as there is an increase) and the “crime” needs further evidence of any harm done by that increase…
Yes, Ferdinand – that is what I was implying.
If emitting CO2 is a crime, those wishing to prosecute such a “crime” need to stop exhaling CO2 first.
/grin
You’re right Roy. Satellite imaging of atmospheric CO2 show that tropical rain forests emit more CO2 than cities.
“CO2 emissions are one part, the link must be between CO2 emissions and the increase in temperature (as far as there is an increase) and the “crime” needs further evidence of any harm done by that increase…”
it goes beyond that. It’s not enough that there be evidence of harm. That harm has to be ILLEGAL. There are all sorts of indirect harms that are perfectly legal. Until there’s a law criminalizing the burning of CO2, supplying oil and coal is not a crime.
I think the ‘crime’ is deliberately, and in cahoots with others, to opposing the hypothesis of climate change for their own personal monetary gain.
This throws back to the Wattsup article on how the work by Exxon and others was measured as being ‘anti-AGW’. Including their investment in solar, wind, commercials for alternate fuels…all counted as being anti-AGW.
RICO charge based on presumption and demanding ALL communications equates to violation of 4th Amendment with 1st Amendment issues abounding…..but this admin has crawled from suspicion of guilt (facts and proof) to presumption (no proof) in only 6 years.
Guilty by association in RICO won’t hold….oil companies have been making payolla to East Algiers, Universities and other AGW scammers for years…which would make them guilty too under RICO
If they, Exxon (and others) had dealt with this (illogical, stupid nonsense) immediately, years ago, this whole issue probably also would have been solved years ago.
As proven by empirical observations, CO2 doesn’t control the sun which in fact controls the climate.
Another nail in the man made global warming coffin of “green” fraud.
“CO2 doesn’t control the sun”
That’s were teleconnections come into play.
Hahaha.
wOw! Exxon called them out in very plain language.
I’m guessing that Exxon must believe they have multiple avenues of defense starting with outright dismissal. Worst case is they put a staff lawyer on it to keep delaying for years until more favorable governments are elected. (I r uh enjineer, not uh loyer.)
I wonder what the reaction would be if all the U.S. oil companies decided to have a “save the climate day” and quit selling gas for that day or two. How about Fourth of July weekend? Ya recon a few people might get a bit upset?
It probably would blow up in their faces. The public wants it’s energy and is notoriously unable to see beyond the last connection (the supplier) to the retailer. Much better to create an advertising campaign that suggests there are unreasonable forces trying to choke off the supply of energy. It must be done adroitly, though.
Yea, you’re probably right. The public has been bashing the oil companies dating back at least to the ’60s. It got really bad during the early ’70s oil crunch. I happen to have been working in Houston at the time. While the North-East was freezing their butts off, they blamed the oil companies and tried to force everyone else in the country to save on energy usage. At the same time, Houston Power & Light was telling their customers to use all the gas and oil they wanted, they had several years of supply on hand and plenty more where that came from. The environmentalists for years hadn’t let anyone build pipe lines going there or oil refineries up there. Everyone I knew was laughing since they, i.e. the NE, had gotten what they wanted. They ran out of energy. So, I guess there has bad blood ever since.
Better yet a “no emissions policy” for Earth Day. No gasoline, no propane, no natural gas, no coal generated electricity for Earth Day. Let the rolling brownouts begin and we’ll see how green the public is.
Joe Crawford April 14, 2016 at 11:02 am
Wrong Joe, below are to links one of today refineries the of the latest built.
The truth of the oil crisis was that the U.S. could not produce enough crude. The east coast refineries got the imported crude. When the northeastern Governor asked if Texas production could be increased the Texas Governor replied New England can freeze in the dark. To this day I will not spend a penny in Texas.
The lack of refineries and pipelines in the northeast is and always has been a urban legend, kept alive by those who do not want to face the fact that when the country had crises brought on by foreigners, Texas choose to refight the war between the states
http://inflationdata.com/articles/oil-refineries-united-states/
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=29&t=6
michael
There wasn’t enough to go around, so Texas chose to keep what it had for it’s own people rather than send it to states that had refused to create their own infrastructure.
If that’s choosing to refight the war between the states, then so be it.
I’m sure that if given the choice, Texans would advise yourself and your money where you are, they don’t want either.
PS: Based on the way the average NewEnglander treats anyone who lives south of the Mason Dixon line, a desire to strike back when the opportunity was presented is hardly unusual.
Let them start by refusing to refuel Gore’s (and his allies) jets…
The has such a potential to blow up in grennie’s face. How perfect when the reality gets surfaced and all the alarmism and eviro-insanity falls like a lead balloon. Go EXXON.
It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
__ For fear they should succumb and go astray;
So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
__ You will find it better policy to say: —
“We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
__ No matter how trifling the cost;
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
__ And the nation that plays it is lost!”
From Dane-geld -by Rudyard Kipling
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danegeld#In_literature
Never trust Wikipedia.
They even screwed this up.
You’ve copied exactly what they have, but Wikipedia has mucked up the last line, which should be: “And the nation that pays it is lost!”
“pays” not “plays”
“I will never play the Dane” 🙂
https://www.getyarn.io/yarn-clip/f90993c3-a11e-495b-964e-dc1eb9b2a642
“Four floors up on the Charing Cross Road and never a job at the top of them.”
“You beastly little parasite, how dare you! You little thug! How dare you! Beastly, ungrateful little swine!”
RIP Uncle Monty.
“once you have paid him the Danegeld/ You never get rid of the Dane.”
Or for the dhimmis, the jizya.
Thanks for the Kipling. Always enlightening.
This is no time to stand on the sidelines. This is a ploy, pure and simple, to intimidate scientifically verifiable (professionally qualified) opposition and, however laughable this case may be found to be in a court of law, a great deal of damage has already been done. (When the dog finds that ‘the hand that feeds it’ is feeding it poison, it’s time to bite it!)
The problem with Al Gore’s case is that they don’t have empirical evidence to relate warming to fossil fuel emissions
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2725743
Let’s investigate the Al Gore fraternity years next.
The subpoena, and the New York meeting that inspired it, are transparent violations of 18USC 241, which makes it a crime to comspire to deprive anyone (Exxon is a legal person) of any of their constitutional rights. Like First Amendment rights. Hope Exxon fires back even harder.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/04/11/attorney-generals-conspire-free-speech-schneiderman-harris-exxon-cei-column/82878218/
http://www.courthousenews.com/2016/04/14/exxonmobil-blasts-official-on-climate-change.htm
According to leftists, morality and legality are defined based solely by who benefits.
As long as they win, everything is by definition legal and moral.
I can’t say I’m very sympathetic towards them. They chose not only to lie down with dogs, but rabid ones to boot. Still, better late than never, I suppose.
Exxon is in business because they produce a commodity that people need …. excuse me, DEMAND at a reasonable cost, and that includes every last festering hypocritical greenie, Al Gore at the top of that miserable heap of humanity. Perhaps it is all of us, including that miserable heap of humanity who should be sued?
Please don’t give them any suggestions. The “miserable heap of humanity” description will be added to my vocabulary.
“The Climate Research Unit (CRU) in the UK was set up in 1971 with funding from Shell and BP as is described in the book: “The history of the University of East Anglia, Norwich; Page 285)” By Michael Sanderson. The CRU was still being funded in 2008 by Shell, BP, the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate and UK Nirex LTD (the nuclear waste people in the UK)
This is important to know, for two reasons.
Firstly, the key institution providing support for Global Warming theories and the basis for the IPCC findings receives funding from “Big Oil” and the nuclear power industry.
Secondly, the research from the institution which is perceived to be independent publicly funded research, is actually beholden to soft money, CRU is in fact a business.”
From: https://seeker401.wordpress.com/2010/03/02/university-of-east-anglia-cru-unit-major-researcher-for-the-last-four-ipcc-reports-wasis-funded-by-multi-national-companies-opec-countries-nuclear-groups-and-big-oil/
Obviously, the Virgin Islands are concerned over this. So in order to help them avoid polluting the planet, all deliveries of fossil fuels to the islands should cease forthwith. Similarly, fossil fueled vehicles such as ships and aircraft should remain outside the 12 mile limit of the islands to avoid the islands becoming party to pollution. The islands can then demonstrate their ‘green credentials’ to the world.
That would be just as bad, if not worse than what they are doing. You can’t fight fire with fire. Not here
I just read an article on the extension of moose range in Alaska due to warming- going back to the early 1800’s! Is it too late for the Greenie goofs to bring action against 19th century whale oil salesmen?
There is a bit of an oxymoron.
Exxon is accused of hiding its “knowledge” of climate change.
The knowledge they speak about does not exist.
And Exxon should accuse them of hiding their knowledge that climate change is not what they portray it to be.
Exxon would be capable of producing far more real evidence of this.
If this fails — I don’t know why any reasonable judge wouldn’t mock and scoff this political boondoggle — succession should seriously be considered for Texas, again. More and more people in the west are becoming frustrated with the disconnected liberal rule of D.C.
Just today, Obama has proposed new regulation for off shore drilling that would cost $billions and likely eliminate thousands of high paying jobs. Liberals without jobs is no problem — they’ll sit around and do nothing and be happy — but roughnecks and rednecks without jobs, that’s dangerous.
First off, the matter of secession was answered in a bit of a mess from 155 to 151 years ago.
Secondly, a judge hasn’t had to sign off on any of these.
The fatal error was firing on Fort Sumter; it was ‘game on’ from that point forward …
The only thing settled by the War of Northern Aggression was that the side with the most guns will almost always win.
If you think that matters of legality are best settled by acts of war, then you live in a different world than I do.
You are expecting a judge to be reasonable?
All gas and oil companies should, for one week, shut down operations to demonstrate to the world’s leaders how integral their product is to the functionality of the global economy. They certainly have the funds to allow for such a disruption — they could call it a protest against unfavorable smear campaigns — because there are no good alternatives to their products.
And since no one has ever demonstrated in concrete terms what effect(s) AGW has on any adverse weather effects, i.e. indecipherable from natural variation or “noise”, it would be impossible for Exxon to be held to a relativistic standard of culpability. Prosecutors might as well make up some random number in the trillions in the hope of settling for hundreds of billions. No testable metric = no fraud.
Case closed.
I question the virginal claims of these islands
Bravo! +1
Exxon don’t be timid, dive right in with all your resources.
Kind of ironic that so called evil big oil may turn out to be the protectant of “earth” from irrational greens.