Skeptics Win! AG pulls #ExxonKnew subpoena

Climate change prosecutors suffer defeat as attorney general pulls Exxon subpoena

Virgin Islands Attorney General Claude E. Walker agreed Wednesday to withdraw his climate-related subpoena of ExxonMobil, a stunning reversal that delivered a blow to the Democratic-led effort to prosecute climate change dissent.

Claude E. Walker, Attorney General, Virgin Islands

Claude E. Walker, Attorney General, Virgin Islands

In the Joint Stipulation of Dismissal, Mr. Walker said he would pull his March 15 subpoena of the world’s largest energy company, which had challenged the subpoena as unconstitutional.

“After conferring on this matter, the parties mutually agreed that Attorney General Walker will withdraw the subpoena and ExxonMobil will stipulate to the dismissal without prejudice of this action,” said the four-page document filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

The decision indicates a dramatic scaling back of Mr. Walker’s climate change investigation, coming just five weeks after he withdrew his subpoena of the free market Competitive Enterprise Institute.

The retreat also comes as an ominous sign for AGs United for Clean Power, a coalition of 17 attorneys general, including Mr. Walker, formed in March to pursue the fossil fuel industry and others that challenge the catastrophic climate change narrative for “fraud.”

Mr. Walker’s subpoena had demanded that Exxon produce a decade’s worth of communications with more than 100 academics, think tanks and universities, including Arizona State University, George Mason University, Lindenwood University, the Weidenbaum Center at Washington University in St. Louis and the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.

Democrats and environmentalists have cheered the probe of whether fossil fuel companies and skeptics have misled the public on climate change, while Republicans and First Amendment advocates have denounced the effort as an attempt to chill free speech and scientific inquiry.

Mr. Walker’s aggressive decision to issue the Exxon and CEI subpoenas put him at the forefront of the effort, but his impassioned climate change advocacy also raised doubts about his ability to conduct an impartial investigation.

“It could be David and Goliath, the Virgin Islands against a huge corporation, but we will not stop until we get to the bottom of this and make it clear to our residents, as well as the American people, that we have to do something transformational,” Mr. Walker said at the March 29 press conference. “We cannot continue to rely on fossil fuel.”

Of the roughly 100 academic institutions and free market groups listed on the Virgin Islands’ Exxon subpoena, 69 were listed on Greenpeace’s #ExxonSecrets website, and in almost the same order.

Pacific Legal Foundation litigation director James S. Burling called the overlap between the Virgin Islands subpoena and the Greenpeace list a “remarkable coincidence.”

Critics have also accused Mr. Walker of attempting to squeeze Exxon in order to score a windfall along the lines of the multibillion-dollar 2006 tobacco settlement. His office had paired with prominent plaintiffs’ lawyer Linda Singer of Cohen Milstein, the former D.C. attorney general.

New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman, who leads the coalition, has denied that the coordinated prosecutorial campaign threatens free speech, arguing that the First Amendment does not protect fraud, and comparing fossil fuel companies to the tobacco industry.

Still active are at least two subpoenas filed against Exxon, one issued by Mr. Schneiderman and another by Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey, who has demanded documents and communications with a dozen universities and nonprofits going back 40 years.

 

Full story: http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/29/climate-change-prosecutors-suffer-defeat-as-attorn/

Advertisements

156 thoughts on “Skeptics Win! AG pulls #ExxonKnew subpoena

  1. Virgin Islands Attorney General Claude E. Walker …… the mouse that squeaked
    ….and in other news
    AG Walker cancels reggae festival at Megans Bay……states fear the island will tip over

  2. “… ExxonMobil will stipulate to the dismissal without prejudice of this action,”
    I assume this means that Exxon won’t pursue redress for their harm, e.g. filing an anti-SLAPP claim or RICO charges against the AGs.
    CEI is still fighting back, I assume the AGs are looking for a quiet end to that too. https://cei.org/climatesubpoena

    • https://cei.org/content/cei-presents-arguments-motion-sanctions-against-usvi-attorney-general says:

      CEI Presents Arguments in Motion for Sanctions Against USVI Attorney General
      June 28, 2016
      Today, a hearing took place in DC Superior Court on arguments concerning the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s (CEI) motion for sanctions against the U.S. Virgin Islands Attorney General Claude Walker. All issues that were brought up in CEI’s motion were discussed in detail, and Judge Jennifer A. Di Toro was genuinely interested in what was said. Judge Di Toro said she would issue a ruling from her chambers. CEI is now awaiting that ruling.

      • I would think that the fact that the VI AG is withdrawing his other subpoena would have a negative impact on the AGs ability to defend against this action.

    • The simplified definition of this legal term of art:
      With prejudice = case is closed. This matter is done.
      Without prejudice = case is closed, but may be reopened, e.g., a plaintiff may re-file a summons and complaint in the matter.

      • Looks like there are some variations as to what “prejudice” means in this context. I don’t recall ever seeing “with prejudice” in my English law studies, but I would have presumed in meant “this changes [something]”.
        “Without prejudice” invariably meant “this changes nothing” in regards to what has been or will be said or done. It can imply that it might be followed by something that does change things, or it might not, eg “Without prejudice you are a |1@r and a $c0ndrel, f>7* 0ph”

      • Ric,
        You should not feel one bit bad — you have more important things to occupy that big brain of yours. I, with much more familiarity than you (I think), have to think it out every time! I think this (albeit pretty quickly, but, like when I’m paging through an alphabetical list (or set of files), unless what I seek comes after E, I quickly, silently mutter, “…G, H, I, J — K! Here we go…”):
        “… prejudiced against you opening this file”
        or
        “…without any prejudice against your opening this file”
        with “prejudice” being sort of, in my mind, a sort of vague term for “bad intent toward you” (from racial prejudice) — not that it means that, just what my brain does to remember, sort of a mnemonic device.
        IT IS A LOUSY TERM! Why not just say: “Case dismissed with possibility of reopening.” or Case dismissed with no possibility of re-opening.” The exceptions and nuances, e.g., can only the original parties to the lawsuit re-open, can be defined in the statute or case law. The basic term, however, should be changed, imo, except! Except, we have thousands of court documents using the term, so, we just have to learn what it means and use the stupid thing!!
        With admiration for your amazingly sharp computer knowledge,
        Janice

      • The term “without prejudice” means you cannot use the contents of this (document) against me. “With prejudice” is the default understanding of any communication. You can use it in an argument, building a case. Something exploratory admitted or offered in a letter (such as, “if you do this I will do that”) cannot be upheld as a contract if it was sent titled, “Without prejudice”. All contracts are ‘with prejudice’ because you can use it as a basis for argument: “You were supposed to do this and that, it says so right here. You failed to do so and I am bringing action against you on the basis of it,” (the contract). “Without prejudice” is (in my experience) attached to a written communication because it refers to the total content of that communication (only).

      • Dear Mr. Crispin (of Waterloo),
        Your explanation is obviously well-informed, but,
        I think your definition is from another body of jurisprudence
        than American (U.S.) law of civil (or criminal) procedure.
        Thank you for sharing — WUWT is a great place to learn!
        Janice

      • Janice, Crispin … you’re talking about different things. In this case

        … ExxonMobil will stipulate to the dismissal without prejudice of this action …

        so, ‘this action’ can come back. In that regard, I think ‘prejudice’ has the same meaning everywhere in the English speaking world. The trouble is that the word is used in many different contexts in the legal world.
        My interpretation (IANAL) … the AG has agreed to withdraw the subpoena and Exxon has agreed that dropping the subpoena now doesn’t keep the AG from bringing it back later.
        The word ‘stipulate’ is a source of confusion here. In normal life, ‘stipulate’ means ‘demand’. In this case, ‘stipulate’ means ‘agree’ (ie. specify). In a settlement, if you’re giving something up, you have to stipulate that fact.

      • without prejudice
        ==============
        the actions/documents cannot be used as evidence.
        In other words, I agree to drop this matter, but this action on my part cannot be used as evidence of anything in the future.

      • @ Jamesb.bkk — Yes. In the U.S., yes.
        CommieBob (and ferdberple) — No, “with (or without) prejudice” is a legal term of art in U.S. legal procedural law. What you both wrote is good, but, this is a technical term. Look it up in Black’s Law Dictionary (mine is in my storage unit and I couldn’t find it online, so, I just wrote a “plain English” version of those technical terms above.

      • Janice Moore says: June 30, 2016 at 7:13 am
        … “with (or without) prejudice” is a legal term of art in U.S. legal procedural law.

        Yes. I think you will find that it is the same in most/all of the English speaking world.
        Most of the English speaking world (including most of the USofA) uses the common law system. Thus, there are many similarities between the various jurisdictions.

    • CEI is a political organization. Their job is to push a message, and taking down prosecutor overreach is one good way to push that message.
      On the other hand, Exxon is an oil company. They want to get out of court and get back to making money. I can’t blame them.

      • They’re getting rid of a short-term entanglement at the cost of a possible long-range repeat of the same felgercarb. Obviously, they consider the latter chance remote. I wouldn’t look for a certain AG to be reelected.

    • “… Of the roughly 100 academic institutions and free market groups listed on the Virgin Islands’ Exxon subpoena, 69 were listed on Greenpeace’s #ExxonSecrets website, and in almost the same order. …”
      Risky to make a case relying on sources who could implode the entire ‘skeptic scientists are crooks’ accusation. Who ran ExxonSecrets? Kert Davies. Who was seen as a name in this January’s “let’s-nail-Exxon-this-year” agenda email list? Kert Davies ( http://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/scan0003.pdf ). Who goes back 20+ years among a small clique of other enviro-activists in efforts to smear of skeptic climate scientists? Kert Davies: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/26/the-origin-of-climate-smear/

      • As I’ve pointed out before, discovery and cross-examination (under oath) is a can of worms the AGW side really should not want opened. I, on the other hand, would love to see Dr Mann et al on the stand, cross examined by a competent and well prepared lawyer.

      • Larry D, I believe you nailed it. The concern that the AGW crowd finally realized was that the breadth and depth of discovery and potential open testimony in court would likely lead to exposure of details that the leaders of the warming groups want to keep hidden. Rational members of the warming groups must have thought through the scenarios that could play out in a court setting. It appears that they attempted to run the tobacco company playbook, but failed to realize, at first, the strength of evidence they rely on is very shaky.
        From the defending position, a subpoena issued by a court in the context of trial discovery would be an interesting and refreshing change to submitting FOIA requests to non-compliant bodies. I predict the other actions that have been filed will quietly be closed, also. Although since this “front” has been opened by the AG’s, I wonder if this is an approach that skeptics can now exploit. Feels like a chess match.

      • I, on the other hand, would love to see Dr Mann et al on the stand, cross examined by a competent and well prepared lawyer.

        You may get that chance if Steyn ever manages to get his case unstayed.

    • And the reason why Greenpeace and the other organizations don’t want to supply their records to a U.S. Congressional Committee.

  3. I still want to see a civil or criminal case made against AG’s for Clean Power. They have a sense of impunity that is thus far justified. A civil suit did in one major Ku Klux Klan group, and Schneiderman et al deserve the same.

      • From what I have seen, CEI is only putting up a vigorous defence. What I had in mind was a countersuit under 12 USC 242? (I am not sure of the legal code reference), the Ku Klux Klan Act, for violating civil rights under color of authority.

      • Did you see my comment not far above that quoted “motion for sanctions against the U.S. Virgin Islands Attorney General Claude Walker”

    • If in the the event it actually starts to get colder, their behinds are going to be in a sling. I think they do know and that is why they are frantic about trying to amass power before that happens as a way of protecting themselves. Silencing critics is an essential first step in that process. As laws are passed in support of CAGW, it’ll be like the affordable health care act, darn near impossible to dismantle no matter how ineffective it is. In the US I think it is apparent to most everyone that is middle class that it is insurance in name only. The poor have always been covered, the rich don’t need it, and the insurance companies don’t cover ” that” or the the deductible is so high as to render it useless.
      Britain is going to have a hard time unraveling the web of interrelated deals and commitments. I wondered why the stock price of Kurig was dropping. I wonder if stock holders can claim manipulation of stock prices based on policy of the EU. Just the threat of gun control laws roils the stock of weapons manufatures. Did affiliates of members of the EU sell short on certain stocks knowing they would go down?
      It’s all related to making our lives miserable. Nothing they have done has been a benefit. The future promises to be even worse under their leadership. They have stated that outright. That what they hold out on nothing but broken models, coulds, maybes, and adjusted data.

      • “If in the the event it actually starts to get colder”
        But getting colder is climate change, innit?

  4. American farmers should file a lawsuit now. They were not prepared with enough storage space for the massive bin busting crops which the increase in CO2 has contributed towards (-:
    That, along with the best growing conditions(in the US Cornbelt) over the the last 25 years since the advent of large scale agriculture.

  5. I still see no evidence of fraud. How must one define “fraud” and “evidence” in order to use the terms in the way these supposedly educated people do?
    If this is actually a “national” issue, shouldn’t the feds handle it? Not that the current administration is any less dodgy, but this AG pile up reeks of an intended shakedown. Can I request a RICO investigation of this stupid AG group? How is what they are doing NOT collusion? At the very least, can we hit them with dereliction of duty? There are probably a lot of important actual cases being neglected as a result of all the posturing the AGs are doing.

  6. C/Shaka when the walls fell?

    Key word spelling, con, khan, doesn’t matter. Just sayin……..

    • My first post here. Lurked for years.
      I run an industrial metal forming and painting operation south of Nashville Tennessee.
      I found this site researching particulate matter years ago, the EPA is always looking to ‘get’ us.
      Love what you folks have taught me, and I would guess thousands of others that view this site feel the same. i thank everyone here for the education you provide. We went from large quantity, to small from what I learned here.
      Regular posters here may think this is an echo chamber, but it is not.
      Posters here provide us dolts in the real world with info to fight back .
      Thanks to all…

      • Best of luck in your enterprise. Thank you for the jobs you provide. May you profit well.

      • And I third it, Nashville — and say, KEEP ON COMMENTING! (it’s fun! #(:)))
        And if you restore hot rods and do auto body work — you have a lot to bring to WUWT — you’ve worked with many, many things that come up here … lots of chemistry knowledge and temperature and humidity control and then, there’s all the firsthand knowledge about running a business and the EPA (bet you’ve learned more than you EVER wanted to know about their regulations!) and much more. So!
        As John F. Hultquist said to me upon posting similarly to you about 3 years ago (and saying that, as a non-technical person/non-scientist I would probably not be posting again):
        “You know things. Share.”
        Welcome!
        Janice

      • I lurked here for years before I first commented.
        I wanted to be sure my comments would contribute something positive. To be sure it is a tough crowd here, and hard to contribute something new.
        Now they can’t shut me up.
        Welcome to the crowd.

      • Posters here provide us dolts in the real world with info to fight back .
        Think posters here are proud to count to the dolts in the real world still fighting back.

  7. It seems somewhere in all of this, the AGs for Clean Power should have to provide details of exactly what fraudulent information is supposed to have been misrepresented by Exxon, and proof that it is not true. This does not require them to have access to Exxon’s records. “Proof” has a different meaning than opinion or theory, connect all the dots of your settled science, and discover that a judge doesn’t believe your proof. There have been endless accusations that big oil is creating misinformation, I have not seen a word of exactly what bits of the current debate are the result of that. “Creating doubt” doesn’t cut it.

  8. “New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman … (compared) fossil fuel companies to the tobacco industry.”
    You know, he’s absolutely right about that. You may not believe this but it’s actually lit cigarettes that provide us with electricity. Bet ya’ didn’t know that. But, now ya’ do. Eric, ole’ boy knew that all along.
    And, it was a lit cigarette that got me to work in the morning. (Um, that’s actually sort of true, so I’ll skip that bit of sarcasm against Eric of York.)
    And, lit cigarettes powered the airplanes that took me on trips, powered the furnaces that made the steel for my car, and powered that same car.
    And, just like being addicted to cigarettes, my employer was addicted to me driving my cigarette powered car into work. My employer was addicted to me coming into work because otherwise he wouldn’t give me a paycheck to which I was addicted to because that was the only way to pay for my cigarette powered heat, my cigarette powered hot water, and my landlord who was addicted to me paying rent.
    Yep, Eric of York, cigarettes and fossil fuels are two peas in the same pod. Idiot.

      • Janice: “(smoking stinks, though 🙂 )”
        I have been a smoker for 68 years. To this day I have never forgotten my regular experience on London double-decker buses in the 1940s and ’50s, travelling to and from school and work. Smoking was only allowed on the upper deck (which always filled up first). Standing only allowed on the lower deck. The buses were frequently full. I can still recall my chagrin at having to travel on the packed lower deck, breathing in the nauseating fumes of wet clothes and BO (amongst other unmentionable smells), when upstairs was the pleasant and agreeable smell of cigarette and aromatic pipe tobacco above everything else. Ditto on underground trains.
        Yes, I’m sorry Janice – I’m your worst neighbour: a non-believer who smokes! (lol).

      • Dear Mr. Ozade,
        I agree. I would rather smell tobacco smoke than lots of other noxious odors (ugh). I just don’t like how it makes my clothes stink after I’ve been around it. I have several dear friends, in fact my dearest person in the whole world is one, who smoke (he may be using only chewing tobacco, now… ). So! You are simply a delightful person who happens to smoke and… for whom I am praying 🙂 .
        My favorite author, C. S. Lewis smoked. And he didn’t believe either… for a long time… but! God got him!
        #(:))
        Your WUWT pal,
        Janice

      • Indeed it does. I can often tell what brand of cigarette the driver is smoking in the automobile ahead of me on the freeway. Marlboro and Camels in particular have distinctive, pungent odors somewhat similar to that emanating from the sewage treatment plant not far enough away.
        Pipe smoking, on the other hand, doesn’t seem as objectionable.

        • In France smokers have been usually very agressive, until the anti-smoke laws (no smoking in restaurants, trains, planes…) were consistently applied. They used to believe they had a “right to” smoke. And telling people that they weren’t allowed was taken by an affront and could be physically dangerous (just as taking drug from a junkie).
          That maybe a general problem of people who claim “rights to”. In France, we even have (actionnable) right to a home. And extremely strong laws to protect leaseholder who don’t pay (for any reason, even if they have enough money). Even people who break in a home are protected by law.
          And we have a terrible home crisis and insane prizes in some areas.

      • Well, Mr. Ozade, while I am a non-smoker, I am for liberty! BIG time. So, for instance, I am against the bans on smoking in private businesses, e.g., restaurants or bars.

      • “So, for instance, I am against the bans on smoking in private businesses, e.g., restaurants or bars.”
        Including for weed, I guess.
        What about the rest,

      • That shines through in your every post, Janice 🙂 (your comment regarding ‘liberty’, that is)
        I’m sick to death of the nanny-state, followed closely by the moral crusaders, ordering us around for ‘our own good’. I don’t think I’m wrong when I say that the 1940s to 1960s (although austere following the war years) were a far happier time in general.
        (Your friend Luc)

      • Janice, good to see you!
        “I am for liberty! BIG time. So, for instance, I am against the bans on smoking in private businesses, e.g., restaurants or bars.”
        You seem to be confusing freedom with liberty.
        Wiki-Liberty
        “Generally, liberty is distinctly differentiated from freedom in that freedom is primarily, if not exclusively, the ability to do as one wills and what one has the power to do; whereas liberty concerns the absence of arbitrary restraints and takes into account the rights of all involved. As such, the exercise of liberty is subject to capability and limited by the rights of others.”
        I have zero problem with people who smoke as is their choice and right to do so, especially in their own homes or on their own property etc. But when in public, their “right/freedom” becomes OUR liberty and my right/freedom NOT to breathe cigarette smoke is just as valid as their right to smoke is. In “private businesses”, just like in private homes, the owners have the right to declare certain behaviors off limits.
        Think about it this way….let’s say I am a “nudist” who enjoys/needs/wants to be naked as much as a smoker enjoys/needs/wants to smoke. I have the right/freedom to walk around naked in my own home all I want to. If my yard is fenced from view, or I live out in the boondocks, I can also walk around in my yard naked all I want to. BUT once MY rights share a space with the rights of others, things change. Compromises must occur.
        I am “free” to be naked, but I am not at liberty to do so anywhere I wish to. Smokers are free to smoke, but they are not at liberty to do so wherever they are limited by the rights of others. 🙂

      • george e smith-
        “And they just don’t kill nearly quick enough; like before breeding.”
        Well aren’t you just the most enlightened fellow tonight? My father smoked from the age of 13 until he died at a ripe old age and NOT from smoking. As one of his offspring, as well as a member of the human race, may I say with confidence that between his smoking and your comment, your comment is by FAR the more deplorable and distasteful of the two behaviors.

      • Funny thing: in my own experience I have generally found smokers to be much more tolerant in their views than non-smokers.

        In a society where large ‘conservative’ groups see smoking as a health hazard and rebellious stupidity, only rebels smoke. In China ‘conservative’ men smoke.
        However, in order to smoke, you have to tolerate smoke. If you can’t tolerate smoke, you won’t smoke. So by smoker’s definition on tolerance, smokers are tolerant.

      • Hi Aphan 🙂
        Interesting point. I’m sure the Mods may be on the verge of crying “Foul! Off topic!” So I’ll try and tie it in with a borderline reference to the original article. Not too difficult if you think outside the box.
        Rights and liberties; freedoms and laws. Who is it that makes the “Law”? Nowadays, new laws (since the 60s/70s anyway) have been made by lawmakers/politicians educated during the march of the Progressives into our education system, via school and university – and also in the light of more recent data and studies pointing up (what may have been) previously unknown dangers.
        In other words laws are made by humans – with all their biased viewpoints and, frequently, misinformed data (nevermind knee-jerk reactions to some extraordinary calamity – to prove how caring they are). This ties in well, very well in fact, with the government’s attempts at restrictions (laws) regarding the use of fossil fuels. Why do they do that? Leaving aside the known corruption of the data AND their pursuit of more power and thence more taxes, it could be said (as I’m sure they would say) they are doing it for our own good and our children’s good etc etc.
        What I rail against is the constant barrage of new laws and restrictions to our freedoms and our choices, to an absolutely stifling degree. This is a very large part, also, of what the UK Brexit referendum was all about: laws and regulations placed on the people of the UK by an unelected group of politicians in another country.
        But I agree with you, compromise is the answer.
        This is too long already and I’m late to bed; got a dental appointment this afternoon 🙁

      • Hi Hugs 🙂
        What I meant when I said that “I have generally found smokers to be much more tolerant in their views than non-smokers” was tolerant of other people’s behaviours
        And I found that to be true working and mixing with people for nearly 70 years (who were old enough to smoke).
        Sorry I didn’t make that clear!

      • Interesting stats I saw years ago. non-smokers in the country, 0% lung cancer. non smokers in the city, 1% lung cancer. Smokers in the country 1% lung cancer, smokers in the city 7% lung cancer.
        I might have these numbers too high by a power of 10, but the ratios will be correct. What struck me was that it is the combination of smoking and city life that truly causes cancer. that smoking on its own is no more dangerous than air pollution found in cities.
        as to where smoking came from, could it be the custom goes back many thousands of years? something you notice working outdoors is that mosquitoes and other biting insects go for the non-smokers. smoke helps keep the bugs away, which provides a survival benefit when one considers the historical risks of yellow fever, malaria, etc., etc.
        If we still had yellow fever and malaria in the numbers we had a century ago, smoking might be considered an acceptable risk, and cigarettes seen as a life saving device, rather than a health risk. I wonder if fossil fuel might be seen the same way?
        The problem comes when things are painted either black or white, when in reality everything has pluses and minuses. Even life saving drugs have side effects, sometimes fatal. Crime provide gainful employment for hundreds of thousands of law enforcement personnel. The income tax act provides employment for hundreds of thousands of accountants, lawyers, and investment advisers.

      • smokers to be much more tolerant in their views than non-smokers
        ========================
        reformed smokers are like reformed sinners. there are none quite so holy.

      • Janice, allow me to modify your statement.
        I’m against government bans on smoking. If the business owner wants to ban smoking, that is his/her right.
        In an ideal world, some restaurants would allow smoking and some wouldn’t. You as a customer take your pick of the options provided by the free market.

        • “In an ideal world, some restaurants would allow smoking and some wouldn’t.”
          And some doctors would perform abortions and some wouldn’t; some wedding photographers would do same-sex weddings and some wouldn’t, and so on.
          Where I am more comfortable with government regulation is in confined, common spaces such as city buses. My tax dollars help pay for it so I ought to be using the system. People ought to be regulated so as to remove the most offensive behaviors first such as smoking and pissing on the seats.
          But as to the professions I am considerably libertarian.

      • Hi, Aphan,
        Thank you for reminding me that we must not abuse our freedom.
        The distinction between “liberty” and “freedom” may be interesting to think about, but, in our current English useage, most contexts, they are synonymous. The important issue I think you are addressing with your semantics comment is good; we must not abuse our liberty or freedom to do harm.
        My issue, which I think, perhaps, you overlooked, is the private property rights of the restaurant or bar (or whatever) owner. THEY have the liberty or freedom to allow smoking on their property. Those who do not like it need not patronize their business.
        Private property is the key for my remarks, not the smoker’s freedom smoke. This freedom (or liberty — I will continue to use them almost interchangeably — but, I am glad you made me aware of the importance of carefully defining terms, for there are others who, like you, find a significant difference between the two words), i.e., the freedom to smoke, would apply out in the wilderness (v. a v. a rule that simply made using tobacco illegal anywhere anytime).
        I wonder why you bothered to teach me about this… It makes me feel like you are over-eager to find fault and makes me wonder if, deep down, you harbor some resentment toward me. I do not say I know this to be true. It very well may not be. That it made me feel that way is.
        I hope that you are happily enjoying summer!
        Janice

      • Aphan: Do you believe that you have the right to ban anything that you find distastefull? Does anyone else have this right, or just you?
        And don’t cop out by declaring that if the majority wants it, it’s right. The majority once favored slavery and the burning of witches and heretics.

        • MarkW,
          “Aphan: Do you believe that you have the right to ban anything that you find distastefull? Does anyone else have this right, or just you?
          And don’t cop out by declaring that if the majority wants it, it’s right. The majority once favored slavery and the burning of witches and heretics.”
          I have the right to ban or prohibit anything I like on and in my own personal property. Period. Everyone else has the same right. The government currently assumes the right to create laws and regulations that affect the public and that includes private businesses that sell to the public. Often, what the majority wants influences those laws, but the number of people that agree with or support something has no bearing on whether that thing is “right” or “wrong”.
          Smoking was determined by the government to be hazardous to human health, not publicly “distasteful”, and as such, a private hazard becomes a public hazard when done in enclosed spaces. So they regulate it.

      • Thank you, MarkW, (and Aphan — I can see, now, that my writing simply was not clear enough — I appreciate your remarks). I did not write well or you would not have found it necessary to modify my statement. Thank you. I meant that a private property owner could allow or ban smoking on their property (just so you know what I was trying, TRYING, lol, to say).
        Private property rights are the key to freedom (and liberty) 🙂 !

      • From the redoubtable Fran Liebowitz:
        ‘I understand, of course, that many people find smoking objectionable. That is their right. I would, I assure you, be the very last to criticize the annoyed. I myself find many– even most– things objectionable. Being offended is the natural consequence of leaving one’s home. I do not like aftershave lotion, adults who roller-skate, children who speak French, or anyone who is unduly tan. I do not, however, go around enacting legislation and putting up signs. In private I avoid such people; in public they have the run of the place. I stay at home as much as possible, and so should they. When it is necessary, however, to go out of the house, they must be prepared, as I am, to deal with the unpleasant personal habits of others. That is what “public” means.’

        • John Caulfield: It is not clear what is your purpose but you seem to be engaging in false equivalence on a grand scale.
          If I go into a room with a faint scent of aftershave lotion, that is hugely different than going into the same room having not bathed in a week and emitting limburger cheese enhanced flatulence.
          [https]://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limburger
          The other consideration is the number of people one person can impact. If I walk into a room, having no aftershave lotion, bathing daily and brushing my teeth, not smoking or emitting other foul or even pleasant odors, I impact no one. But you come in with a raunchy cigarette, or even not — 2 or 3 pack-a-day smokers reek, you can practically see the PM2.5 particles hovering around them and you can certainly smell it. That one person impacts hundreds. He does not have a right to impact hundreds and neither do I, but I don’t impact hundreds.
          If it were a matter of merely my behavior being offensive to your delicate sensibilities, then perhaps your delicate sensibilities need adjusting. But that’s not how it works or why it is done. Consider that the first puff anyone takes on a cigarette is met with usually a violent reaction as your body thinks you are trying to kill it. The incentive to smoke, which passed me by completely but hooked my daughter, must be very strong to overcome your instinct that smoke is death.
          It’s kind of a package deal. One of the other readers here complains about the non-existence of non-smoking bars. Duh. It’s a package deal. Who on Earth has only one vice? They come in sets.
          Smoking (or heavy drinking, or operating mobile sonic disruptor units) sends a signal of your sociality or lack thereof.

      • Janice, we appear to be kindred spirits, at least wrt to this. Laws here try to split the issue. An establishment that allows smoking must restrict their customers to those over 18. The result is we have smoke filled bars, and taverns with kids running amok.
        One bar opened here that was non-smoking and not kid-friendly (no childrens’ menu, no crayons, etc). They could not make a go of it and became a smoking bar. I voiced my regrets to the server, and she said a law was under consideration to ban all smoking. She was quite surprised when I said that was terrible. If there is no market for a no-smoking, no children, drinking establishment, then clearly folks like me should simply drink at home. Safer, too.

      • Yes, Janice, smoking stinks.
        Cats stink, dogs, cats, household litter and cheese stink.
        Fish, babys and your shoes stink.
        Women, Kerosin and socks stink – thinking about neuroplastic operations to prevent olfactoric notions?
        Tobacco, alcohol, coffee, gasoline – high extra taxes, nothing used for better Healthcare or perfuming the streets.
        Again – what’s your point: tell it to whom it interests.
        Olfactoric sensors, eyesight and fear are fundamental basics for survival. Take it or leave it,whatever you want.

        • Johann Wundersamer complained: “what’s your point: tell it to whom it interests.”
          I am interested and you are interested. I have declared my point. What is yours?

      • Carcasses stink; hyenas and vultures like that.
        OK, me’s no nature fan too.
        Let’s stay realistic : that’s how mother earth functions; whatever you want .

      • Janice Moore on June 29, 2016 at 7:22 pm
        +1
        (smoking stinks, though 🙂 )
        _____________________________________
        Cigarette smoke is the best olfactory barrier against the stinking world .

      • I too find the smell of tobacco comforting, particularly the smell of pipe tobacco. It is a smell from my childhood which reminds me strongly of my grandfather, a wonderful kind man with smiling eyes and a big booming laugh, and always with a pipe in his mouth. Alas he died later of throat cancer. But whenever I smell pipe tobacco I remember him.

  9. “We cannot continue to rely on fossil fuel.”
    The leaders of the US, Canadian and Mexican governments have just agreed upon the same policy.
    Sounds to me like a rerun of the eugenics craze in the years before the Nazis demonstrated where such beliefs would lead mankind.
    The main difference in the performance of these three government leaders and the Three Stooges is that the asinine behavior of the Three Stooges was funny, while bizarre behavior of the three leaders is tragic.
    It is a tragedy that these three leaders propose to use state power to eliminate from our civilization the very fossil fuels that provide its life blood–energy–without a viable replacement.
    I for one cannot understand how such people can rise to positions of power that enables them to undermine the material foundations of their own societies.

  10. “the First Amendment does not protect fraud”
    Indeed, nor does it protects conspiracy against rights notably free speech.
    It’s like saying “right to privacy does not protect murder and you might as well be a murdered, for all I now”. It’s batcrazy. Anyone who utters that isn’t a lawyer. It’s a lawyerbot. It’s a much credible as a lawyer as the Buffybot is credible as a Buffy.
    “comparing fossil fuel companies to the tobacco industry.”
    Even as an adolescent (and with zero tolerance of smoke and tobacco scent), I was uncomfortable with the tobacco trial. Didn’t feel “right” and bordering scary.
    That’s why the comparison with tobacco doesn’t impress me.

  11. There will never be a court case around this issue because there is insufficient evident on the warmists side , having said that anyone stupid enough to try it may just do us a favour when the inconvenient truth is finally revealed “no case to answer”.

  12. “but we will not stop until we get to the bottom of this and make it clear to our residents, as well as the American people, that we have to do something transformational,”
    Sounds like AG Walker should maybe transform into some useful human, perhaps sweeping the streets in the Virgin Islands, or Dog Catcher (if he can even get elected to that post).
    Imagine a lawyer doing anything “transformational”….. Like the Wright Brothers perfecting powered flight, or the Apollo team landing on the Moon, or……
    And then we have the AG of my home state;
    “New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman, who leads the coalition, has denied that the coordinated prosecutorial campaign threatens free speech, arguing that the First Amendment does not protect fraud”
    Boy oh boy, if there ever was a “fraud” it would be the climate “scientists” that claim to know what the “average” temperature will be in 10,20,30….100 years. THERE IS THE BIGGEST FRAUD EVER……
    Oh, AG Schneiderman, I’m right here in NY State (born and raised as were my parents), come and get me for “fraud”… I never claimed to be able to predict the weather in future decades, and I was totally accurate….. It got warmer, it got colder, it got dryer, it got wetter, I predicted all of those…..
    Cheers, KevinK

  13. Cheering though this news is – that at least one of the ridiculous court actions have been reversed, I have to admit that I was relishing ‘our’ day in court in which ‘we’ took the plaintiffs to the cleaners, proving ‘our’ case beyond all reasonable doubt (that man-made glowbull warming is a manufactured myth anyway) and put this whole charade to bed, finally.
    Oh well; maybe one day.

  14. HOORAY!!!
    “Exxon – Mobil” TV ad

    (youtube)
    “Taking on the world’s toughest energy challenges.”
    (including ultra vires attorneys general…)
    Go, Big Oil! #(:))
    No apologies.

    • Another Exxon U- tube on the technology development that helped win World War II, more high octane gasoline for Fighter Jets

      • Excellent choice of video, catcracking. I watched the whole thing. After reading that junk science on the “Good news!” — NOT thread, this was refreshing. Such an EFFICIENT process. And to very worthwhile.
        “the workhorse” — indeed.
        And those rotter AG’s are dumping huge loads of climate-change-cement into the wagon that big draft horse is pulling. Pulling the free world along the road to health and prosperity. What’s all that cement for? Our tombstones, I guess.
        Time to get the statists off the back of private industry!
        ****************************
        In addition to the wonderful timing (Providential, imo) of the 1938 invention, then, 1942 application of the science, another really neat thing about that video was this:
        Just because you are no longer being paid to do it does not mean you are no longer an engineer… or a scientist… or other professional. Those older men had much knowledge and wisdom to share. Don’t ever stop talking and writing about and doing science (thinking about problems is analysis and that is science!), you fine WUWT men and women! Give talks to local schools, clubs, other groups. Don’t be afraid to not know all the answers — just say, “May I have your e mail address? I will get back to you.” (and run over here and ask the guys and gals 🙂 ) If you have a hearing impairment, simply acknowledge that fact and your audience will admire you and will respect what you are saying even more, most likely, for your being brave enough to get up and talk anyway.
        We still need you.

      • Just a small technical point, jet engines don’t burn high octane gasoline but kerosene instead. It was (and is) piston-engined aircraft that need gasoline.

      • Janice,
        You captured the essence of the video well including the historical importance. I love the part s where many of the old timers were interviewed. The video was produced by Exxon Research and Engineering as part of a 50 year celebration of Catcracking technology based on using fluidized catalyst particles incorporating the significant part it played in the war effort. The importance can be measured by the fact that Engineers, Scientists and other workers in the oil refineries were exempt from the draft since they were more valuable at their jobs. I was well aware of the video when it was produced and was surprised to find it on the internet several years ago. My mug appears for a fraction of a second near the end. Interestingly, the technology is still widely used and continues to be further developed today with numerous advancements over the years including adaption to other processes besides Catcracking.
        I only wish that the AG’s would watch the video and get an appreation of one of the many ways the oil business has made their life easier including not having to speak German or Japanese. The video puts into perspective the foolishness of their obsession with global warming crimes.

      • Thanks for the correction, the technology development was to get more high octane fuel for piston engines in the aircraft which played an important part in defeating the Axis.

  15. AGs United for Clean Power
    Is this what these stooges were elected for? To form another activist group on the taxpayer backs? I find that notion repulsive.
    As my climate skeptic friends knock Greenpiece, I am watching them on a different front, the fisheries.
    Recently, a group of Pew funded scientist created another anti fish study, and remarkably, it found there was decades of under reporting in the New Zealand fishery, and there was not enough oversight, i.e. monitoring to assure there was no over fishing. It caused quite a ruckus.
    What was really interesting was just before the attack on the New Zealand fishery, Greenpiece went after a distinguished, and well respected marine scientist, Ray Hilborn, U Washinton, for his funding sources, which they claimed were not disclosed. The amount was paltry, but those schmoos made a big deal out of it.
    Greenpeace attacks University of Washington fishery scientist Ray Hilborn, and Rays response, along with a nice collection of Greenpeace post’s http://fisherynation.com/?s=Greenpeace

    • I have nothing against activism. For better or worse that is part of the American system.
      When it poops the bed is when government officials or departments practice activism as part of their official duties. Then the rule of law goes out the window and the Constitution becomes joke. It would be like referees announcing whose side they are on before officiating a game and the whole thing starts to smell worse than rotting fish.

  16. The fact that 17 AGs would call themselves “AGs United For Clean Power” makes it crystal clear that their aim is to use the power of their office not to serve justice but to advance environmentalism.
    All Americans deserve a judicial system that is impartial and without agenda except the application of the law. As such, this is corrupt and a grotesque abuse of their offices. Shameful.

  17. Ah, gee. Why is it that these clowns never want to end up in front of a judge proving the “science” of their AGW scam. I really hope the Dems stick to their platform and run on squelching skeptics, er, free speech. that should go well with the average voter, “Shut up and sit down.”

    • That would be quite an own-goal by the Democrats. While the media comes down hard on pro-environmental and progressive left, they have an overwhelming support of the first amendment since their livelihoods depend on it.
      Legislating a political opinion, much less prosecuting dissenters, is already making them uneasy, and is already creating a rift with the Democratic party. If the Democrats lose the support of the media, then we can hope for greater scrutiny of administrative action and less carte blanche

    • I guess they realized that they would have to present evidence of human caused global warming/climate change which they don’t really cannot have because it doesn’t exist.

      There! FIFY 🙂

    • Worse, they have changed their standard of evidence. Environmental legislation goes based on the preponderance of evidence, which to a layperson unaware of the details and weaknesses, it can easily be argued.
      However, they are trying people for criminal charges. Worse, for fraud. For this you need to pass multiple hurdles.
      1: The truth must be beyond a reasonable doubt. CAGW simply cannot meet this criteria. The reason no one has prosecuted the anti-vaccine crowd is because of how large a hurdle this is. Not even multiple studies confirming something is sufficient. The existence of contrary studies countermands this.
      2: They must have known about the truth, believed it, and then tried to disguise it. This requires solid evidence of active wrongdoing. Going back to anti-vaxxers, this is why Wakefield is the only one to meet the force of law. Everyone else went along with the flow or used assumptions. Wakefield manufactured fake data.
      3: There must have been harm from the lies. The very existence of the IPCC countermands this.
      Furthermore, even if those impossible hurdles are crossed, you have the fact that political speech is sacrosanct. Interpretation and rhetoric are not rational. This means that you would have to find outright, explicit creation of fake data. There is simply no hint that Exxon EVER engaged in that. Ironically, though, exposing fake data by the alarmists has played a part in a number of articles on this site alone, and is clear enough that it would pass these tests.

      • “The reason no one has prosecuted the anti-vaccine crowd is because of how large a hurdle this is.”
        And essentially because the anti-anti-vaccine movement is full of crap. They have no desire to be under the light as they wouldn’t survive it, as all pretend-scientific crowds.

      • Ben,
        Technically you are right, but have you noticed some of the opinions from the liberal court appointees? There are 4 people on the Supreme court who will back anything the President wants to do even if beyond his constitutional powers. Take a look at how many times the 9th Circuit court has been overturned.

  18. And this the day the Dems finalized their 2016 platform submital including a plank to legally pursue deniers.

    • Planks are useful.
      The fun bit is watching them build a gallows and hang themselves on it while they keep thinking how clever they are to have built it.

  19. From the article: “Mr. Walker’s aggressive decision to issue the Exxon and CEI subpoenas put him at the forefront of the effort, but his impassioned climate change advocacy also raised doubts about his ability to conduct an impartial investigation.
    “It could be David and Goliath, the Virgin Islands against a huge corporation, but we will not stop until we get to the bottom of this and make it clear to our residents, as well as the American people, that we have to do something transformational,” Mr. Walker said at the March 29 press conference. “We cannot continue to rely on fossil fuel.”
    Sounds like AG Walker has a CAGW agenda to me. A biased prosecutor trying to use his official position and the law to forward his personal CAGW agenda, but the U.S. Constitution got in his way.
    The Democrat Party and Hillary just made prosecuting CAGW skeptics part of their Democrat platform. The Democrats are officially against the First Amendment right of Free Speech now.
    New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman can carry on this charade against Exxon for a while longer, but in the end, he doesn’t have any more of a case than did Walker. Speculation about the weather is not a punishable crime. Speculation is not fraud.

  20. “Virgin Islands Attorney General Claude E. Walker agreed Wednesday to withdraw his climate-related subpoena of ExxonMobil…”
    Sure, after it landed him and his “cause” a ton of publicity. Maybe that was the plan all along.

  21. This is why smart companies have a policy to delete all email after 3 years. Nothing is saved unless a lawyer writes it in a defensive way.

  22. The first amendment neither protects nor prevents fraud – it prevents the government from pre-punishing citizens or discouraging citizens from saying what they might say. We are not guaranteed an audience and we are not immune from consequences stemming from what we might say, but the government will defend to their deaths our right to say it. At least that is how it was before liberals and progressives.

  23. “arguing that the First Amendment does not protect fraud”
    Protection against arbitrary searches does not protect drunk driving, so we get to search all cars on the parking lot for booze, right?

  24. What concerns me most about these attempts to quash the 1st and 4th amendment is that we have totally unethical Federal judges like these:
    Here is what Richard A. Posner a Judge on the Federal 7th Court of Appeals wrote as published in Slate:
    “And on another note about academia and practical law, I see absolutely no value to a judge of spending decades, years, months, weeks, day, hours, minutes, or seconds studying the Constitution, the history of its enactment, its amendments, and its implementation (across the centuries—well, just a little more than two centuries, and of course less for many of the amendments). Eighteenth-century guys, however smart, could not foresee the culture, technology, etc., of the 21st century. Which means that the original Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the post–Civil War amendments (including the 14th), do not speak to today. David Strauss is right: The Supreme Court treats the Constitution like it is authorizing the court to create a common law of constitutional law, based on current concerns, not what those 18th-century guys were worrying about.
    In short, let’s not let the dead bury the living.
    Dick Posner”
    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_breakfast_table/features/2016/supreme_court_breakfast_table_for_june_2016/law_school_professors_need_more_practical_experience.html
    Here is the oath of affirmation that ALL Federal Judges take per the US Code :
    Each justice or judge of the United States shall take the following oath or affirmation before performing the duties of his office: “I, ___ ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as ___ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”
    (June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 907; Pub. L. 101–650, title IV, § 404, Dec. 1, 1990, 104 Stat. 5124.)
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/453#
    Until we start impeaching judges like this which either lied when confirmed or when they took the oath or after having taken the oath made it clear they will not abide by the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, we are all under threat. As far as I’m concerned Posner would be impeached and no other evidence is needed than his statement above.

    • Broad principles are independent of culture or technology.
      For example, freedom of speech is freedom of speech, regardless of whether you are using a hand powered printing press or a TV station talking to millions at the same time.
      What Posner has written and most leftists seem to believe is that they feel that the constitution should not be an impediment to their desires to perfect society.

      • They also conveniently ignore that there is an Amendment process that can be used to update the Constitution, if required. It’s far easier to get five votes by the SCotUS to ignore the original meaning and intent of it.

      • The Amendment process is difficult (by design) and requires real consensus, not the 51% vote of a pseudo-representative assembly.
        While they can get away with a pseudo-representative assembly, they will.

  25. Although already being sued in Canada, Greenpeace is now being sued for $100M, and possibly triple that, by Montreal-based Resolute Forest Products under U.S. anti-racketeering (RICO) laws in what promises to be an “epic legal battle”:
    http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/peter-foster-resolute-forest-products-uses-mafia-laws-to-go-after-the-eco-mob
    https://www.heartland.org/podcasts/2016/06/27/michael-bowe-greenpeace-under-fire-court

  26. Sweet, sweet victory! 😀 (Seems to me that law suits need to be brought against these attorneys general and Al Gore for their own fraud…an example needs to be made here. The Democrats’ platform includes prosecuting skeptics. I don’t mean to be a wet blanket – but this isn’t going away 🙁 )

  27. ‘ “After conferring on this matter, the parties mutually agreed that Attorney General Walker will withdraw the subpoena and ExxonMobil will stipulate to the dismissal without prejudice of this action,” said the four-page document filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.’
    I’d just read
    – AGs draw back from their first step
    – Exxon and others want draw any conclusions from that drawback; and want make any claims concerning the whole to and frow.

  28. draw back, retreat from, sleep another night ower – whatever you want, not that specific.

  29. Obviously, the AG knew it was a losing proposition because it’s a HOAX and bailed. Can you see the discovery phase with Exxon questioning Mann et al under oath? Nor do they want the scrutiny the publicity of a trial would bring to the evidence. Of course they could just be waiting until they’ve won the national election.

  30. ‘we have to do something transformational,” Mr. Walker said at the March 29 press conference. “We cannot continue to rely on fossil fuel.”’
    The U.S. Virgin Islands have announced that they will no longer allow fossil fuel powered cruise ships to enter their ports, nor fossil fuel powered airplanes to land at their airport. Wait . . . what? They didn’t? Then what is he talking about?

  31. This was just a shot accross the bow. The Dem draft party platform includes planks not only prosecuting skeptics, but moving to 50% “clean energy” within ten years and 100% by 2050.
    The Democratic party now represents the biggest danger to our Constitution, and to the freedoms many Americans have fought and died for that we have ever faced, because it comes from within. I now view them as traitors to our great country.

  32. Attack something you dislike and accuse any defense of being a fraud. What an enlightening concept.
    This isn’t over and the fat lady hasn’t even cleared her throat.

  33. This should NOT just go away! It is the ATTEMPT to subvert freedom and prosecute opinion that is the real affront. There must be consequences for those that work to undermine democracy through actions. Otherwise more attempts will be made. GK

  34. If prosecuting/persecuting/investigating Exxon for allegedly downplaying global warming was acceptable government action, then prosecuting/persecuting/investigating climate alarmists for making exaggerated global warming claims must also be acceptable. This leads to the government having a fundamental right to not only prosecute anyone with an opinion but to literally persecute them and their friends and their associates.
    The AGs malfeasance is so egregious to the American system of governance and individual rights that the only apt conclusion to this dismal matter is for all the AGs responsible be put in a raft and set adrift in the pacific ocean without food and water but with a thermometer to track global warming.
    I cannot express the outrage I have against these AGs, and do not understand why there is not wider outrage.

  35. <>
    Okay, Mr. Walker. You first. Since you live on the Virgin Islands, there is to be no more fossil fuel power cruise ships docking on your island. Nor any fossil fueled power airplane landing. Losing tourist money is an unfortunate side-effect when your idea is implemented. Oh, by the way, neither will you be allowed to import food unless it comes from boats with sails. That, of course, will significantly raise the cost of living at a time when money will be hard to come by because of the lack of tourist money. Oh, and to get off fossil fuels would require farming by hand and bull, no tractors. And it would require all food to be shipped in without plastics.
    So, Mr. Walker. Set a shining example to the world. Get off fossil fuels first like you tells us we have to. If the problem is real, then you don’t mind to lead by example? Do not tell me to do what you will not first do yourself.
    I am not sorry to tell you, Mr. Walker, but you are a pawn. Manipulated and disposable. You have been played and if or as soon as Big Green gets what they want, you will be tossed aside faster than you can count to 1. If Big Green cared about you, they would logically think about the consequences of getting off fossil fuels. That means quick economic suicide and people begging for anything that is edible. Big Green cares not for you; this is David v. Goliath. This Senator Brewster v. Howard Hughes. You are Senator Brewster, whom everyone knew was a pawn of Juan Tripp. You are a pawn, sad to say. And once you are no longer useful, Big Green won’t even give you the time of day.

    • P.S. I quoted the words of Mr. Walker, but they disappeared: **Mr. Walker said at the March 29 press conference. “We cannot continue to rely on fossil fuel.”**

    • I don’t know if you are right, but I had the same thought. Walker looks like a rube they put up to filing the subpoena for them. Maybe Southerners have gotten to sophisticated for them to trick into doing their dirty work.

  36. “It could be David and Goliath, the Virgin Islands against a huge corporation, but we will not stop until we get to the bottom of this and make it clear to our residents, as well as the American people, that we have to do something transformational,” Mr. Walker said at the March 29 press conference. “We cannot continue to rely on fossil fuel.”
    The use of, effectively infinite, government resources to promote a political campaign needs to be stopped in its tracks.
    Here in The UK we have just witnessed the same thing. We had a PM who wished to ‘remain (as he is fully entitled to do as an individual) using the full (effectively infinite) resources of HMG to promote that belief. It has to be stopped.
    As it turned out in The UK, he was using those resources against the interests of a majority of the population.

  37. “On May 31, Resolute took a page from the ENGO’s playbook and, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, filed a civil RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) suit against Greenpeace and a number of its associates who, though they claim to be independent, act cooperatively.”
    “Patrick Moore, one of the original founders of Greenpeace, is disappointed that the group that originally wanted to help, is now an extortion racket. He told me: “I am very proud to have played a small role in helping Resolute deal with these lying blackmailers and extortionists.””
    http://spectator.org/greenpeace-faces-a-resolute-opponent/

  38. The complaint describes in detail the falsity of these and other malicious and defamatory accusations. Among other things, the complaint explains that far from being a “forest destroyer,” Resolute has planted well over a billion trees in the Boreal – which is a billion more than Greenpeace – and is responsible for virtually no permanent lost forest acreage. The complaint also demonstrates that Resolute also has not impaired the Boreal’s ability to absorb greenhouse gases, and, instead, has improved that ability through harvesting and forestation as recognized and encouraged by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Nor has Resolute abandoned, exploited or impoverished First Nations or other communities within the Boreal forest, but instead – and again unlike Greenpeace – has created and sustained substantial benefits for these peoples through shared economic participation in the forestry business. The complaint also details how, to support its false accusations, Greenpeace has fabricated evidence and events, including, for example, staged photos falsely purporting to show Resolute logging in prohibited areas and as having harvested areas that were actually impacted by fire.
    http://resolutefp.mediaroom.com/2016-06-01-Resolute-Stockholders-Vote-in-Favor-of-Each-Proposal-at-Annual-Meeting

    • “Resolute has planted well over a billion trees in the Boreal – which is a billion more than Greenpeace”
      Good one, ferd, I got a good laugh out of that one!

  39. The entire problem is the misuse of words. Financial “fraud” is things like the Bernie Madoff ponzi scheme, or claiming your drug passed safety tests when it failed. What Exxon did (if it did anything) was to not shout loudly enough that the sky is falling. I don’t think you can anywhere find Exxon claiming that climate change is not happening, nor did they have any “inside knowledge”. Any funding to think tanks was about policy or attacking dodgy science, which are totally protected by the 1st amendment. This is not financial fraud. Yelling “fraud” when you disagree with someone is dodgy enough as a debating tactic, but forbidden in a legal setting where words must have fixed and definite meanings.

  40. Two things to ponder: if man-made climate change has been so clear cut and understood over the last decade as to commit fraud by failing to warn investors of monetary risk, how is it that, to this day, climate ‘experts’ have failed to make a single, correct prediction about the climate?
    Secondly (and a bit thought proving, perhaps), suppose that the AGs are absolutely correct (which I strongly disbelieve), and oil companies did conclude they were creating a global warming catastrophe. Further, that they colluded, and withheld their results to protect their financial interests. And their conclusions were wrong; the climate did not get warmer, there were no catastrophes, no investor lost money. Would they be found guilty of fraud, or thanked for not creating a global energy catastrophe to prevent a non-problem? And if they had disrupted the energy markets by announcing their erroneous conclusions, could they then be held responsible for investor losses?
    Just a disclamer: BP pays me every three months in the form of a dividend check.

  41. Why let this witch hunting A holes off the hook ?
    AG’s who think they can use their job titles to bully people are a disgrace .

Comments are closed.