Exxon Strikes Back Against the Climate Witch Hunt


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.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
April 14, 2016 8:26 am

Good for XOM. I would have expected it from his predecessor, but not from TRex.

Reply to  JimB
April 14, 2016 8:29 am

Lee Raymond was a no-nonsense hard-nosed kind of guy. Refused to buckle under to Venezuela and sued their *ss, as I recall.

Bryan A
Reply to  JimB
April 14, 2016 10:06 am

Think I’ll start backing Exxon by Buying my fuel from them exclusively

Reply to  Bryan A
April 14, 2016 10:51 am

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.

Reply to  JimB
April 14, 2016 11:02 am

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.

Reply to  TG
April 15, 2016 5:04 am

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:
“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.

Reply to  TG
April 15, 2016 10:32 am

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.

Reply to  JimB
April 14, 2016 11:59 am

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

Doug in Calgary
Reply to  BernardP
April 14, 2016 12:46 pm

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?

Reply to  BernardP
April 14, 2016 6:53 pm

Seems some in the US did not learn the lessons from McCarthyism.

Reply to  BernardP
April 15, 2016 10:33 am

The lesson of McCarthyism is don’t go after leftists/communists because the media will crucify you.

Reply to  BernardP
April 16, 2016 11:40 am

“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.

Tim Crome
April 14, 2016 8:27 am

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!

Reply to  Tim Crome
April 14, 2016 8:39 am

They may sit in silence as government zealots comes after their competitors.
Who will come to their defense when the government comes for them?

Ian W
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
April 14, 2016 9:07 am

Where have I heard that before….?
Seem to remember it did not end well for the zealots then too.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
April 14, 2016 9:37 am

Ian: no, it did not end well for the socialist zealots, then, but they managed to kill 60,000,000 people of all sorts.

Reply to  Tim Crome
April 14, 2016 10:07 am

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

Reply to  Tim Crome
April 14, 2016 10:33 am

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.

Reply to  benofhouston
April 14, 2016 7:58 pm

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.

Reply to  benofhouston
April 17, 2016 3:13 pm

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.

April 14, 2016 8:28 am

..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 / ???

April 14, 2016 8:32 am

Kinda ironic how the corporate/industrial heirs of the Rockefeller family are battling with the financial and charitable heirs of the Rockefeller fortune.

Tom Halla
April 14, 2016 8:39 am

“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.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Tom Halla
April 15, 2016 5:49 am

The problem of course is that once you pay the Dane-geld you never get rid of the Dane.

April 14, 2016 8:41 am

If their CO2 emissions are a “crime” then the science showing the evidence of that “crime” must be produced.
This may become very interesting.

Reply to  JohnWho
April 14, 2016 9:36 am

It is extremely easy to produce evidence of CO2 emissions.

Tom Halla
Reply to  Roy
April 14, 2016 9:55 am

“it is exremely easy to produce evidence of CO2” Yes, POOMA– but valid, relevant evidence is another thing.

Reply to  Roy
April 14, 2016 10:13 am

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.

Reply to  Roy
April 14, 2016 10:49 am

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…

Reply to  Roy
April 14, 2016 11:09 am

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.

Reply to  Roy
April 14, 2016 11:41 am

You’re right Roy. Satellite imaging of atmospheric CO2 show that tropical rain forests emit more CO2 than cities.

Reply to  Roy
April 15, 2016 9:54 am

“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.

Reply to  JohnWho
April 17, 2016 3:26 pm

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

April 14, 2016 8:41 am

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.

Reply to  roaldjlarsen
April 14, 2016 10:14 am

“CO2 doesn’t control the sun”
That’s were teleconnections come into play.

Reply to  MarkW
April 14, 2016 11:50 am


April 14, 2016 8:43 am

“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.”

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.)

Joe Crawford
April 14, 2016 8:45 am

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?

Reply to  Joe Crawford
April 14, 2016 9:37 am

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.

Joe Crawford
Reply to  Gary
April 14, 2016 11:02 am

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.

Reply to  Gary
April 14, 2016 11:20 am

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.

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  Gary
April 14, 2016 12:38 pm

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

Reply to  Gary
April 15, 2016 10:42 am

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.

Reply to  Gary
April 15, 2016 10:45 am

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.

Reply to  Joe Crawford
April 14, 2016 9:51 am

Let them start by refusing to refuel Gore’s (and his allies) jets…

April 14, 2016 8:45 am

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.

April 14, 2016 8:48 am

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

Reply to  Stephen Rasey
April 14, 2016 9:20 am

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”

michael hart
Reply to  Taphonomic
April 14, 2016 1:23 pm
Nigel S
Reply to  Taphonomic
April 16, 2016 2:42 am

“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.

Reply to  Stephen Rasey
April 14, 2016 9:33 am

“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.

Bob Denby
April 14, 2016 8:49 am

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!)

April 14, 2016 8:50 am

The problem with Al Gore’s case is that they don’t have empirical evidence to relate warming to fossil fuel emissions

April 14, 2016 8:57 am

Let’s investigate the Al Gore fraternity years next.

April 14, 2016 8:57 am

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.

Reply to  ristvan
April 15, 2016 10:43 am

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.

Bruce Cobb
April 14, 2016 9:02 am

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.

April 14, 2016 9:08 am

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?

Tom in Florida
Reply to  kamikazedave
April 14, 2016 9:58 am

Please don’t give them any suggestions. The “miserable heap of humanity” description will be added to my vocabulary.

April 14, 2016 9:12 am

“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/

Ian W
April 14, 2016 9:12 am

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.

Reply to  Ian W
April 14, 2016 10:37 am

That would be just as bad, if not worse than what they are doing. You can’t fight fire with fire. Not here

John Harmsworth
April 14, 2016 9:20 am

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?

Gerald Machnee
April 14, 2016 9:22 am

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.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Gerald Machnee
April 14, 2016 10:00 am

And Exxon should accuse them of hiding their knowledge that climate change is not what they portray it to be.

David A
Reply to  Tom in Florida
April 15, 2016 5:58 am

Exxon would be capable of producing far more real evidence of this.

April 14, 2016 9:22 am

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.

Reply to  RWturner
April 14, 2016 11:00 am

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.

Reply to  benofhouston
April 15, 2016 9:28 am

The fatal error was firing on Fort Sumter; it was ‘game on’ from that point forward …

Reply to  benofhouston
April 15, 2016 10:52 am

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.

Reply to  RWturner
April 14, 2016 11:06 am

You are expecting a judge to be reasonable?

April 14, 2016 9:27 am

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.

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.

John Harmsworth
April 14, 2016 9:37 am

I question the virginal claims of these islands

Joe Civis
Reply to  John Harmsworth
April 14, 2016 10:04 am

Bravo! +1

April 14, 2016 9:38 am

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.

April 14, 2016 9:58 am

From the article: “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.”
Yes, that is the central question. What crime *have* they committed?
The replies from the Climate Change Brownshirts ought to be interesting. Let’s see if they can come up with an example of a crime Exxon has committed.
If the supposed crime has anything to do with the human-caused global warming/climate change theory, then the first thing the prosecution will have to prove is that there is such a thing as climate change caused by humans. They can’t do it. Case closed.
This is pure Leftist/crackpot intimidation. Good for Exxon for fighting back, although I don’t see that they have any choice, they are, after all, fighting for their own personal freedoms, and in the process they are defending *our* personal freedoms.
To the Lunatic Left we say: Bring it on! We want this discussion. You don’t.

April 14, 2016 10:05 am

When .gov is out to get you, the PROCESS is the punishment…
.gov knows the legal case against EXXON is a joke, but they can still make them waste $10’s of millions in legal fees, waste $10’s of millions on man-hour costs related to the discovery process and cause $10’s of millions of lost corporate brand equity.
If Leftist judges go completely insane and actually find Exxon guilty, it could cost Exxon $billions in damages…
i can’t believe how crazy the US has become…
This insanity will not end well…

Reply to  SAMURAI
April 14, 2016 11:03 am

No, but it will end.

Bryan A
Reply to  lowercasefred
April 14, 2016 2:17 pm

So, again, we need to support them by buying their product almost exclusively Kind of like the Streisand Effect

James Woodruff
Reply to  lowercasefred
April 14, 2016 5:45 pm

”No, but it will end.”
That’s what everyone said about the other chemistry scam: pot’s like heroin.
Did you enjoy pot’s like heroin? You’re going to love, ”More fake chemistry says you owe me money for making the sky hot using fire.”
By putting the gases in the air responsible for cooling the earth more than any other ones- they emit parallel to the earth, helping get rid of energy they reduced by double digits percent simply being part of the atmosphere.
Go look at a chart of sunlight top of atmosphere vs surface: all those notches are due to green house gases.
See the reductions not named over the top there, where the visual light is? That’s also due to the solid and liquid phases of green house gas water as clouds snow ice and liquid, stopping energy from being turned to heat on the surface.
There are only two other major groups: Nitrogen and oxygen, and oxygen reduces energy in through scattering enough to create blue skies.
It’s a scam. The atmosphere is not a heater. The atmosphere is a frigid turbulent light robbing compressed fluid bath chilling a sun warmed rock.
End of story. Which is why those who believed in it despise the public: we knew they were bought and sold chicken sh***s without the guts to stand up for what’s right,
and they know we all knew – and know – who they were and are.

Bryan A
Reply to  lowercasefred
April 14, 2016 10:50 pm

Actually the atmosphere is what warms the Earth by preventing the heat from leaving at night. With out it Earth would be nerely identical to the Moon which fluctuates between 100C or 212F on the day side and -173C or -279F a difference of 273C or 491F between daily high and nightly low on a daily basis Earth varies by about 40F or 50F Or 21 to 26C Atmosphere is your friend

Bryan A
Reply to  lowercasefred
April 14, 2016 10:52 pm

Oops, forgot the hashtags

David A
Reply to  lowercasefred
April 15, 2016 6:00 am

True, and the oceans keep the atmosphere moderate.

Reply to  SAMURAI
April 15, 2016 2:34 am

My late father taught me something that has stood me in good stead when dealing with government flunkies.
If they come after you with red tape, tell them the first thing you are going to do is look at their personal background, their friends and family.
And then let them know that every questionable thing you find is going into print.
Scorched earth policy.

April 14, 2016 10:14 am

BTW, the record high temperature for yesterday in my area in Oklahoma was 96 degrees, in the year 1936.
I dont recall any year in the 21st century, in Oklahoma, in April, having a temperature nearly that high, although that is not definitive, only my memory. The year 2010, was as hot a summer as I believe I have ever experienced around here (remember, I wasn’t around in the 1930’s :), but I’m pretty sure the real heat only came later in the summer, not in the spring, and the heatwave did not last longer than normal either. I think my particular area was just real close to the center of the high pressure system that year.
Anyway, I thought the record high and year was interesting enough for me to mention, since I make the claim that the 1930’s was hotter than it is today. This is just more anectdotal evidence of that to me.
Exxon ought to show all the Climategate emails to the judge. Let the judge see who the real criminals in this situation are.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  TA
April 14, 2016 10:25 am

I am about 1000 miles North of you in Western Canada where our all time (recorded) was 47C or 117F in 1937. I believe there were heat waves in Australia and Europe in the 30’s as well.

Reply to  John Harmsworth
April 14, 2016 11:14 am

117 degrees is one heck of a high temperature! And that far north! We certainly have not had the extreme weather in the 21st century that was evident during the *decade* of the 1930’s, not just one hot year, mind you, but an entire decade.
I’m looking for some raw temperature data charts covering the antarctic and the southern hemisphere. Newspaper reports said antarctic temperatures “soared” during the 1930’s. Would love to see an unadulterated atmospheric temperature chart of the area.
I have seen charts of raw temperature data that showed Ukraine, and Russia, and China were experiencing extreme heat during the 1930’s, which about covers the NH.
It looks worldwide to me, and the 1930’s weather is, without a doubt, more extreme than anything the Earth has experienced in the 21st century. All you have to do is read the newspaper accounts of the era to understand how extreme the weather really was then. And all this before any “human-caused” was an issue.
Thanks for your temperature record. I’ll add it to my collection. 🙂

Reply to  John Harmsworth
April 14, 2016 11:35 am

John, are you sure it wasn’t 45C/113C? That’s my understanding… Midale Saskatchewan near Estevan; like you said in 1937. Certainly would have been reached without any contribution from nearby air conditioners and spurious jet exhaust.

Reply to  John Harmsworth
April 15, 2016 2:49 am

It gets warm in OZ , some places more than others.
Marble Bar has an arid climate with very hot summers and mild to warm winters. Most of the annual rainfall occurs in the summer. The town set a world record of most consecutive days of 100 °F (37.8 °C) or above, during a period of 160 days from 31 October 1923 to 7 April 1924.[5]
During December and January, temperatures in excess of 45 °C (113 °F) are common, and the average maximum temperature exceeds normal human body temperature for 6 months each year. Marble Bar receives 159.6 clear days annually. Dewpoint in the summers is between 10 and 15 °C (50 and 59 °F). Rainfall is erratic and sparse, falling largely between December and April. As little as 71.1 mm (2.8 in) can fall in a year, however during heavy wet seasons when the monsoon reaches well south into the Pilbara, as much as 797.9 mm (31.4 in) can fall annually. The most rain recorded in a month is 417.4 mm (16.4 in) in March 2007.

April 14, 2016 10:24 am

“Constitution? We don’t need no Constitution? I don’t have to show you any stinking Constitution!”
/Al Gore

Reply to  lowercasefred
April 14, 2016 12:40 pm

You reminded me of Al’s “No controlling legal authority,” lowercasefred.
Here’s a refresher for those who forgot or an eyeopener for those too young to know.

April 14, 2016 10:25 am

If Exxon is manufacturing a dangerous product, why does the government not outlaw the product? It seems that the failing lies with government, in that they have failed to restrict the harmful product even though they know it to be harmful.
This is like saying that cocaine is harmful, but we will allow everyone to sell it. Instead we will go after the manufacturers of cocaine and sue them. It would take only a matter of minutes for cocaine manufacturers to transfer their business overseas, beyond the reach of the US government. They would continue to make cocaine offshore, then middlemen could by it from the offshore manufacturers and sell it legally in the US. And there would be nothing the US could do about it, because selling would not be a crime. The crime would be manufacture.
If you want to end CO2, make it illegal to sell gasoline at the pump. Problem solved.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  ferdberple
April 14, 2016 11:49 am

ferd, not just selling it, making income from others selling it. Tax and spend, double-tax and spend…

April 14, 2016 10:51 am

Anyone who knows how to get the documents filed by Exxon to block this subpoena?

Steve Fraser
April 14, 2016 10:53 am

I wonder how the finances of this will play out for the budget of the U.S. Virgin Islands. They issued a subpoena, which IMO they did not write, and filed it in The D.C. District court. EXxonM decides to play hardball, and signals via this action that they are serious. I think THAT message will not be lost on the AGs of the other interested states, who (I think) picked the USVI AG to test the waters.

MacLeod 53
April 14, 2016 10:57 am

After reading this article I was on my way to fill up my Jeep, as usual at my local Shell station, but for some reason the yellow color of the shell sign did not seem right.
Strange thing was, the red white and blue sign at the local Esso (Exxon in Canada) just seemed a little brighter this morning.
While filling up at the Esso I had to smile to myself as I silently mouthed the words, f**k you MR. Gore.

Mike the Morlock
April 14, 2016 10:59 am

As always thank you Eric Worrall
Interesting that Exxon picked Attorney General Claude Earl Walker of the U.S. Virgin Islands to counter.. They (U.S. V.I.) are the weakest link economically. Plus A.G. Walker launched two court cases. While several State A.G. have gotten on the bandwagon Exxon may get the opportunity to deal with them one at a time. So both Exxon and the Competitive Enterprise Institute can tag-team “Earl” in court. I wonder what “Earl’s” budget is? and how quickly Exxon and CEI can run though it. Now think about it. expert witnesses will have to be called and housed at court expense. Exxon and CEI also can call climate scientist “experts” they will be under oath. I’m not sure who would have to pay their way. Think about Dr Mann. Exxon can call him, if he pleads the 5th, to protect his law suit. tsk tsk. He can be offered immunity from criminal prosecution . He may be forced to cut his own throat.
People just think of the implications. These people never expected to have to sit in a court and and be cross examined.
I could go on, but I have take break and go buy popcorn
“Confusion to our enemies”

April 14, 2016 11:06 am

My suggestion on this is to drop Exxon a line (email, phone, snail mail, Facebook if they have one, whatever) and tell them that you support them standing up for their rights. We need to support those wishing to and have the monetary resources to fight against these Gestapo. We need to put down the climate alarmist vampire now before it gets to big to kill.

Reply to  Oscarphone
April 14, 2016 12:23 pm

My suggestion on this is to drop Exxon a line (email, phone, snail mail, Facebook if they have one, whatever) and tell them that you support them standing up for their rights.

That’s a good idea, Oscar. I’m also of the mind that it’s always worth giving praise where it’s due. Every now and then I drop Marc Morano an email thanking him on behalf of the skeptic adherents for all his hard work and dedication, to offset (slightly) the masses of hate-mail that I know he receives – and almost invariably I get a nice ‘thank you’.
So I’m going to drop Exxon Mobil a line too.

hot air
April 14, 2016 11:17 am

Someone ought to sue Gore et all for ’emotional distress’ because of their rhetoric. They got me all worried about climate change that just isn’t happening…

April 14, 2016 12:02 pm

There are fundamentally two sorts of characters: resistants and kollabos.
During war, you learn who is who. (Oh I referred to WWII, somebody will not be happy.)

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  simple-touriste
April 14, 2016 1:33 pm

I plead ignorance. Who are “kollabos or what. …collaborators? Vichy?

April 14, 2016 12:51 pm

Damn good for them. I will support them by using their products.

April 14, 2016 1:13 pm

I’ll change my weekly gasoline purchase routine and head to an Exxon station nearby.

April 14, 2016 2:21 pm

This reminds me of IBM standing up to the SCOX shakedown over alleged “UNIX code in linux”, which is still ongoing http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20130723082441261
Anthony can take Pam’s part here… and no… he doesn’t have to wear a red dress.

Red Baker
April 14, 2016 2:21 pm

This is what energy companies can expect from the socialist warmunists they have been supporting for decades. They have legitimized their mortal enemies, they have failed to recognize deadly foes. My bet is the companies will continue to cower and condone.

Reply to  Red Baker
April 16, 2016 11:55 am

Yup, which is why I suggest shareholders suing Exxon Mobil management. Either management was negligent in it’s duties to account for skeptical science, as can easily be led to via blogs like WUWT. Or else, Exxon management KNEW that CO2 catastrophism is a shoddy enterprise, and their profits would be threatened by it’s growth – something Exxon Mobil could have easily crushed, by now.
In either scenario, Exxon Mobil has been a BAD ACTOR, and it’s management deficient in carrying out their duties.

Gunga Din
April 14, 2016 3:33 pm

Here in the US, PBS routinely says something along the lines of “This program was made possible by support from (fill in the blank) and viewers like you.”
Not all the programs are “Sesame Street”.
I’m glad that Exxon is not bending over for this.
But (no pun intended) they and other targets for the reaming have funded this kind of stuff for decades.
Don’t just stand up in the courts, turn off your “green”.
(Shell, Dow, etc., are you listening? Will you continue to bow until it’s your turn to receive your “reward”?)

Reply to  Gunga Din
April 14, 2016 5:44 pm

Shell was recently prominently displayed in a short video at the recent Microsoft Build conference for software developers during one of the key notes. Shell was showing off their scientists using technology to explore underground exploration for more resources. No windmills in sight.

Tsk Tsk
April 14, 2016 4:35 pm

How many children have to die from vitamin A deficiency aided and abetted by the irrational, anti-science of so called green organizations like Greenpeace and FOE before they are investigated for RICO violations and worse?

April 14, 2016 4:36 pm

The A-G of the Virgin Islands? Was it a bad day fishing down there – too hot so decided to blame XOM?
And would you believe it: In 2015, the U.S. Virgin Islands Water and Power Authority is converting its electric generating stations to use propane instead of residual and diesel fuel oils. I would have thought that solar and wind would be all they need.

Reply to  Robber
April 14, 2016 6:32 pm

Sort of like my thoughts, If win and Solar are so great WHY are the importing fossil fuel to make electricity? Their electric costs have to be as bad as Hawaii. You would think they were doing everything to use that “Free” energy and reduce the cost.

April 14, 2016 6:29 pm

This lawsuit could backfire on the Greens. If anything, the search of Exxon’s data will show that they are pushing Solar and Wind to enhance and Improve their profit potential. Everyone wonderwed why T Boone Pickens promoted wind farms in Texas. I saw right away. The best area for wind was right on top of his NG reserves. He would make a fortune! Even RFK Jr. advocates the opinion I have had for 30 years that use of and advancement of solar and Wind power is the best way to increase the use of Oil and natural gas. In RFK Jr own words ” A wind farm is actually a NG power plant in disguise.”

Gunga Din
Reply to  usurbrain
April 15, 2016 2:46 pm

I hesitate to reply here because I don’t remember the links to that would connect “dots” or even what they were. Only that T Boone Pickens was a Gore-type profiteer but on a more local scale.
The gist of what I read a couple of years ago had to do with gaining easements. He would gain from either easements for water lines (water is a big deal in the US Southwest) which he would then use for profit from power transmission or vice versa. (Vague recollection. Forgive me if I’ve got it all wrong. Unlike some renowned climate scientist, I admit the possibility. 😎

April 14, 2016 6:29 pm

People should encourage Exxon to fund public debates and open source efforts to create a temperature recreation and climate model. If Michael Mann can create the Hockeystick behind close doors and limited budget, Exxon can sponsor an open and well funded effort.

April 14, 2016 7:08 pm

Bit bitter sweet about this. Nice to see a company like Exxon pushing back… But Exxon and other companies spent years funding and paying lip service to many of these groups who have proceeded to use their funding and profile garnered from being taken seriously to harass tons of ordinary citizens, companies, and organizations far too small to fight back.
If companies like Shell and Exxon hadn’t tried to appease their way out of the whole thing in the first place we might not have to have this fight now.

Reply to  SomethingFishy
April 14, 2016 8:45 pm

Who exactly were they funding? Which anti environmental group/skeptic group were they funding? I don’t believe they were. Prove it.

Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
April 15, 2016 1:52 am

I don’t think he was referring to ‘anti-environment or skeptic groups.

April 14, 2016 10:01 pm

This type of branding was the same type of intimidation tactic employed by Nazi brown shirts. People have given up too much to let some bureaucrats attempt to bully them and waste their time on what is one of the biggest overblown scams in history .
If people (including these bureaucrats) don’t want to drive cars with gas or heat their homes no oil and gas company is forcing them to buy legal products which are in large part responsible for much of the improvements in peoples quality of life .
The truth is the world has been warming as we come out of the most recent ice age and anyone that doesn’t think a warming world is good should move to Antarctica and see how you feel at minus -40 . Every activity humans do involves generating CO2, like breathing out . When did we know we were apparently killing the planet by doing so ? The tiny contribution of CO2 from humans is actually a very good thing as forest experts are now confirming for example .
The latest pathetic attempt to harass and bully is just one more desperate attempt to pump hot air into a deflating overblown scam . Exxon the way to stop a bully is punch them in the nose . Cave in and you will never stop running . I am buying your gas as support .

Patrick MJD
April 15, 2016 2:01 am

So, what about Enron and Gore and “carbon” trading?

April 15, 2016 4:22 am

this witch hunt is green fascism.
The science is not settled — the proof is not so much in the fact that the dozens of IPCC models have failed to predict the temperatures in relation to CO2 — but the simpler fact that there are dozens of models.
If the science was settled – there would be but a single model – and it would work

April 15, 2016 4:26 am

Of all the majors, ExxonMobil has taken the most ethical approach to the alleged global warming issue.
Other majors have attempted to “play” this issue for political and market gain. Exxon has been more principled.
In general, the global oil and gas industry has failed to take a principled stand on this issue and has avoided its responsibility to speak the truth, and has thus prolonged and exacerbated the global warming scam. Senior management has failed their shareholders and the public with this unprincipled stance.
Cheap, abundant reliable energy is the lifeblood of society – it IS that simple.
The global warming scam has wasted many trillions of dollars and cost many lives due to excessive energy costs and increased winter mortality.
Remember, none of the IPCC’s scary predictions of runaway global warming and wilder weather have materialized. These global warming alarmists have a consistently negative predictive track record – one should confidently assume that their future track record will be equally false.
Regards to all, Allan
Cold Weather Kills 20 Times as Many People as Hot Weather
June 13, 2015
By Joseph D’Aleo and Allan MacRae
Presentation of Evidence Suggesting Temperature Drives Atmospheric CO2 more than CO2 Drives Temperature
September 4, 2015
By Allan MacRae

Danley Wolfe
April 15, 2016 7:04 pm

A message to Sheldon Whitehouse, Bill McKibben, James Hanson, the IPCC, the ideologues in government esp. the Obama administration, and the legions of climate minions (including mainstream media) protesting and broadcasting their “Chicken Little” story of doom and gloom of CO2 catastrophically causing a tipping point bringing to and end the world as we know it: the only thing that would justify federal RICO charges on the oil companies would be if the major oils conspired to turn off all the oil spigots at the refineries, completely shutting them down. This would severely affect the transportation sector incl. personal, commercial – trucking and aviation, and public (municipal and regional rail and bus) transportation, the chemicals and plastics industries and downstream products manufacturing, along with other key sectors of the economy; by coordinating scheduled maintenance shutdowns coincidentally, for one month “turnarounds.” It would basically shut down the entire economy, dramatically exposing the melodrama being played out to sway public opinion on climate policy issues. These fanatics have no concept of how the economy works and the critical role of carbon based energy in the economy. It would be useful to perform an economic analysis of all the input-output linkages to carbon based fuels and raw materials derived from oil and gas – it can be done using the U.S. Input-Output Tables, 6-digit NIPA accounts, Census of manufactures and USITC or UN bilateral U.S. trade data. Of course I am not suggesting this.

April 16, 2016 3:49 am

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

%d bloggers like this: