Don’t mess with Texas – #ExxonKnew AG’s to be hauled into court

attorney-generals-texas

Judge to haul state AGs to Texas for deposition

Hannah Hess and Benjamin Hulac, E&E News reporters

A federal judge in Texas has ordered the attorney general of Massachusetts to appear for deposition next month in a lawsuit Exxon Mobil Corp. filed as part of an attempt to block investigations into what the company knew about climate change.

U.S. District Judge Ed Kinkeade ruled yesterday that Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey (D) and New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman (D) should appear in Dallas on Dec. 13. The judge will enter a second order regarding Schneiderman’s deposition after he files an answer in the case.

Kinkeade issued the order one day after a telephone status conference with the parties.

It marks the latest victory for the oil giant in an escalating legal and political battle that has come under scrutiny by Republicans on the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, fossil fuel industry advocates and environmental groups.

Healey and Schneiderman have both been investigating for months whether the Exxon violated securities laws and consumer-protection rules by withholding information related to the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions on the climate.

The company alleged in a filing last week that the two attorneys general were “conducting improper and politically motivated investigations of Exxon Mobil in a coordinated effort to silence and intimidate one side of the public policy debate on how to address climate change” (ClimateWire, Nov. 14).

Both attorneys general participated in a news conference this spring, along with former Vice President Al Gore, in which they accused fossil fuel companies of committing fraud by lying about climate change science and announced a multistate effort to hold them accountable (Greenwire, March 29).

Kinkeade issued an order in mid-October suggesting that Healey may have acted in “bad faith” against the company. He pointed to comments made during the spring news conference as cause for “concern.”

A spokesman for Exxon said yesterday’s order reinforced those sentiments.

“We have no choice but to defend ourselves against politically motivated investigations that are biased, in bad faith and without legal merit. We did not start this, but we will see it through and will vigorously defend ourselves against false allegations and mischaracterizations of our climate research and investor communications,” said spokesman Alan Jeffers.

Healey has argued that Exxon’s push for discovery is “in an effort to evade legitimate” inquiries of Exxon (ClimateWire, Nov. 2).

A spokesman for Schneiderman said last night that the office “will respond appropriately.”

Healey’s office declined to comment.

Full story here: http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/stories/1060045996

Advertisements

119 thoughts on “Don’t mess with Texas – #ExxonKnew AG’s to be hauled into court

      • Well I’m sure the likes of Exxon are big enough to look after themselves, but it is reassuring to see that this blattant abuse of power is likely to get the perpetrators in some seriously hot water, and I’m not talking SST here.

        This is going to be interesting to watch.

      • @MarkW
        Not even close. In 2014 Exxon had gross sales of $415 billion while the state of New York had a 2016 budget of $95 billion. The AG’s office can’t tap all of that while Exxon’s legal expenses are deductible.

    • Schneiderman has regrouped to an argument that Exxon engaged in racketeering to misinform its shareholders about the certainty of CAGW settled science. Exxon needs to flip this to determine if Schneiderman-Oreskes-Gore et al. weren’t actually part of a racketeering effort to misinform “Big Green’s” shareholders (environmentalist donation-givers, in other words) about the certainty that Exxon funds a misinformation machine staffed by paid shill climate scientists.

      • If racketeering to drive up your stock price is illegal, surely racketeering to drive down someone else’s is equally illegal?

      • Flip the argument against the climate hypesters a bit further: that Naomi, Bill, Gore, Mann, etc. did deliberately and for corrupt personal gain over state the risks of so-called “climate change” and deceitfully suppressed the huge unknowns and known mitigating factors. All in order to further the ends of their CO-conspirators in enriching themselves. That they knowingly made false accusations designed to silence or intimidate potential and real valid reviews of their work product…..

      • That’s one angle. The other is, how could they possibly mislead with something that doesn’t exist? Where is the evidence that CAGW exists? Is Exxon privy to data the rest of us don’t have?

        ‘Climate change’ is a euphemism, and an hypothesis that means different things to different people, but if there is no global warming caused from CO2, then there is no ‘climate change’.

      • There’s no doubt this is stock manipulation. It’s very obvious. There are people who don’t understand profits can be made by driving a stock down, the AGs involved in this case don’t fall into that category, I’m sure they’re all fully aware that stocks can be “shorted”.

        The proof of complicity won’t be found in testimony, it will be found in the short positions of the AGs. If any such positions existed that evidence would be damning. The problem is finding any “indirection” that might exist. It would take a tremendous amount of stupidity for any of the AGs to directly hold short Exxon positions. Who did? In what way are they related to the AGs? Is there evidence those “short” on Exxon had previously provided financial support to the AGs?

        Will these questions even be asked?

    • How about adding the soon-to-be junior Senator from California, our current Attorney General, Kamila Harris?

    • Nonsense Sharin. This is nothing more than a media sideshow and an opportunity for the Mass AG to spend some time in Texas during the worst part of winter in MA. A dog and pony show. Your tax dollars at work shuttling Attorneys General all over the country to beautiful Austin, where the climate, music, women and food are all hot.

      Scam. This is a PR scam.

  1. ORDER: On November 16, 2016, the Court conducted a telephone status conference with the parties. In order to expeditiously conduct the necessary discovery to inform the Court on issues relating to pending and anticipated motions related to jurisdictional matters, the Court orders that Attorney General Healey shall respond to written discovery ten (10) days from the date the discovery is served. It is further ordered that Attorney General Healey shall appear for her deposition in Courtroom 1627 at 1100 Commerce Street, Dallas, Texas 75242 at 9:00 a.m. on Tuesday, December 13, 2016. Attorney General Schneiderman is also advised to be available on December 13, 2016 in Dallas, Texas. The Court will enter an Order regarding Attorney General Schneiderman’s deposition after he files his answer in this matter. The Court is mindful of the busy schedule of each of the Attorneys General Healey and Schneiderman and will be open to considering a different date for the deposition. (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 11/17/2016)

  2. All of a sudden all of these people with little hands…
    …have suddenly found a pair

    In case anyone missed it….Ford isn’t going to Mexico either

      • MarkW November 18, 2016 at 12:31 pm

        Mark the people who build american cars or no different then you, they work just as hard if not harder and just as long if not longer. Are you going to say we should import Coal because our coal miners are lazy and payed to much. How about oil workers?
        Fine if you think a foreign auto is better, fine go buy one, but your personal preferences are no reason to cost our fellow citizens their livelihoods. Like I said buy buy a foreign car but understand the there is a possibility that there may be high tariffs placed on them. Mr Trump won the election based on trade reform. You would not want him to break a promise would you?

        michael

      • Mike, the people who build Mexican cars or no different then you, they work just as hard if not harder and just as long if not longer.
        PS: If they are unionized, the claim that they work as long or as hard is disproven.
        PS: You know nothing about me, or how hard or long I work, yet you feel free to imply that I’m being hypocritical. Why, because I’m challenging your shibboleths?

      • PS: Like I said, the difference between populists and socialists is mostly in who they want government to screw.
        You both want government to tax other people so that people that you approve of can have more.
        For every job your tariffs save, 2 to 3 jobs will be lost elsewhere in the economy.

      • MarkW November 18, 2016 at 1:50 pm

        I’m am not concerned about Mexican, Korean Chinese or Japanese workers. Only American.

        Also save the knee-jerk socialist crap
        We could argue this but it is likely moot. Trade was a big issue this election Trump figured it out. Hillary and you did not. That is why Trump won with the rust belt, Which is normally Democrat.
        Like I said earlier take your pick trade reform and tariffs or a Democratic congress in 2018.

        By the way reality “Trumps” your fantasy job loss quote. Mark, we never had a time were we went from little or no trade barriers to suddenly creating them. It is the figment of someones imagination with no historical reference.
        Yes I know attempts to say the trade barriers of the 1930s made the depression worst, but they preserved american vital industries so they would be there come the 1940s.
        Up until the 1960s this country had trade protections that created a large middle class in relation to poor and rich and the highest level of opportunity for its citizens. With the removal of our trade protection our middle class began to shrink and opportunists to live the american have become fewer and fewer.
        Look at the unemployment rates of our young people. We have them competing for entry level jobs with people who’s industries have been destroyed by predatory foreign trade. All of this is a direct result of the removal of trade barriers. Free trade has done nothing but harm this country.

        Your arguments seem to have their roots more on whats best for you rather then what is best for the nation. And not causing large numbers of the population to permanently lost their livelihoods so another segment can get a bargain is not the purpose of government. Nor is it wise from a nation defense standpoint. Tariffs were included in the Constitution for a number reasons, taxes and protections They work very well thank you.

        We disagree Mark but it is largely out of our hands. Lets see what Mr Trump does.

        michael

      • To you Ford detractors: My like new 2015 Expedition is a great car. (My eldest son insists that it is a truck). Super easy for an old guy to get into and out of…retractable running board and convenient hand grips. AND FORD WASN’T BAILED OUT WITH TAXPAYER MONEY.

        You are right, I am a Ford fan, for many years.

      • Creating an environment good for manufacturing is the only plan that will succeed. Get OSHA, EPA, EEOC, etc., out of the factory, else more work will go over seas.

        Tariffs don’t fix the problem.

      • “As opposed to the the American built crap they’ve been foisting on us for years?” Well Mark W, I got news for you. I drive a 1997 Ford aero star cargo van. It now has 307,000, miles on it. I have replace parts which do wear out but have not done any the engine and transmission except change oil. How’s that for a “crap built”.

    • Ford is moving all small car production to Mexico. Ford has decided to keep a Lincoln SUV plant in Kentucky. Meh.

    • Of course Ford “is going” to Mexico. Ford is already in Mexico.

      The purpose of production in country is to avoid import tariffs on products; f the product s produced in Mexico, Mexico can’t impose tariffs on it because it isn’t imported. I have no problem at all with that.

      But when the product is manufactured in Mexico, then imported to the US? Yes, then tariffs are appropriate. There is a distinct cost of living adjustment that needs to be made. That’s a legitimate use of tariffs in an economy that’s as heavily manipulated as ours is. Anyone paying attention to the USD/PESO exchange rate?

    • I prefer to fire my 50 caliber tracers from a reinforced bunker with a 90mm M3 at the ready. Seems like the AG’s fired their tracers and thought that everyone else was going to rush to their aid, (where has Algore been in all this?)

      • Waiting for his wind turbine to put out enough reliable power to run his shredder? I wonder what the download rate on BleachBit has been recently?

      • Lemme see. One inch equals 25.4 mm. Fifty caliber is one-ihalf inch. One-half inch equals 90mm. WAIT. Something’s wrong.

      • “David Chappell November 18, 2016 at 8:14 pm
        A 90mm weapon is definitley not hand-held.”

        Not correct. For example the 140 mm FGM 172 SRAW.

        Yea, I know there is always some nitpicker out there. ;-)

        But the reason why your comment caught my eye and I responded at all is because I have fired a 90 mm M67 recoilless rifle from an unsupported kneeling position.

      • To all those confused about the 90mm M3…

        The “90mm” is the bore of the weapon (the diameter of the gun barrel). The “caliber” (in this case, 53 calibers long) is the comparison of the aforementioned diameter of the gun barrel with the length of said gun barrel (53 x 90mm = 4,770 mm or 15.65 FEET long). So no, definitely NOT a “hand held” weapon, which is something determined not just by the bore size.

        http://wiki.warthunder.com/index.php?title=90_mm_Gun_M3

  3. Integrity needs to be restored in the government of United States of America – let us hope Trump is the right man to get that started.

    Judge Andrew Scott Hanen, also in Texas, is an example to follow – The following court order is a must read:
    STATE OF TEXAS, et al., versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et. al. – Court order
    That court order illustrates perfectly the loss of integrity in the Department Of Justice:

    “The Attorney General is hereby ordered to inform this Court within sixty (60) days of what steps she is taking to ensure that the Office of Professional Responsibility effectively polices the conduct of the Justice Department lawyers and appropriately disciplines those whose actions fall below the standards that the American people rightfully expect from their Department of Justice.”

    Here is my short version
    OK -little girl from North Carolina – the stage has been set!

    We now know that Loretta Lynch never entered the stage.

    Let us hope that the next United States Attorney General will set a new standard.

  4. How can a request for discovery be an “attempt to evade a legitimate investigation”?
    Unless the “investigators” have something to hide?

  5. Legal Opinion??

    Can Federal RICO laws be applied to State AGs if they 1) were coordinating 2) openly political and 3) corrupt prosecutions?

    The irony would be great.

    • Yes, I think it applies. RICO says “any organization” and a state AG has no expectation of sovereign immunity with regard to a Federal Statute.

    • Previous comments on this topic by ristvan say RICO not needed. Criminal law 18USC241 (a.k.a. KluKluxKlan law) and civil equivalent 48USC1983 are adequate. Before Nov 8th, criminal prosecution was unlikely; now, who knows?

      This action is likely to cause a lot more concern among the #ExxonKnew AGs than before the election. Nothing moves quickly in the courts (just ask Mark Steyn), but Exxon has deep pockets and now no reason to play nice.

  6. So glad these leftist jerks are getting the tables turned on them.

    BTW, Ford is adding jobs in Mexico, but no US jobs are being lost, and lots of money is being earmarked for US plants. The UAW has known that all along, it’s in their last contract. The low margin vehicles are still being migrated south, and the large margin (F-Series, SUVs and Mustang, etc.) as well as the new Ranger and Bronco are to be built in the US. Makes perfect sense to me, but Trump did not know the facts on this.

    • “…but Trump did not know the facts on this.” That’s a leap of abstraction. What we hear on the campaign trial does not equate to what a person knows or does not know.

    • ha ha…how to accidentally or subliminally affect history…or the future of the universe! More Scotch is in order.

  7. Happy Anniversary CLIMATEGATE

    The leaking of secret documents and emails has been the destruction of warmism. Exxon spends a lot of time in court. Part of the oil business. Exxon will take it to them.

    • Methinks that if we are going to have an NSA that it should be mandated to report directly to the public (bypassing all media) any and all illegal activity within our own government regardless of political affiliation. Of course this will drive the obvious suspects underground but then I doubt that there is such a thing as “underground” to our National Security Agency. If they don’t already have everything that
      Wikileaks, the Russians, the Chinese and everyone else has then what kind of security are they?

  8. My first reaction was, why Texas?

    Texas has a bad name because of venue shopping by patent trolls. Exxon has its headquarters in Texas so it should file there. I am so not used to folks filing where they should.

  9. Reality is cruel alien to the climate obsessed. They deserve every bit of trouble and public humiliation coming their way.

  10. Schneiderman backers suffered a stunning defeat . Now he will see who if anyone is backing him up . Did he have State authority to act as lobbyist (AG’s For Clean Power ) and use his office to represent his opinion as being that of a State position ? If so let’s see it produced in court . Were all his accomplices
    authorized by their State to target Exxon ?
    Gamble big lose big . Although politically motivated he , appears to have pee’d in the wrong peoples corn flakes without proof of wrong doing . In fact quite the opposite. You would think a lawyer would be well aware of the responsibility to provide proof before attempting to seek publicity to harm a persons reputation .
    Unlike his unfounded and inappropriate allegations about Exxon he will receive the benefit of being taken to court to account for his actions . Can’t wait to read the transcript and to get to the bottom of this .

  11. I can save them some time and tell them these AGs’ answers to all questions, probably including their addresses and phone numbers: “I don’t recall.”

    They’re Democrats, right?

  12. I hope every one of those “Exxon Knew” AG blowhards ends up disbarred and out of a career. Exactly what they deserve for having the nerve to attack anyone based on “climate change” horse manure.

  13. What the AGs lost is a complicit federal government. Jeff Sessions is as politically far away from the Obama AGs as it is possible to get. His views on the green scam are our views and he is not prone to compromise on principle. He is also more than willing to use the appropriate laws to frustrate the likes of the NY AG.

    Trumps initial appointments send a clear signal that he plans to govern as he campaigned. I am optimistic that he will turn the federal government lose on the scam artists and green rent seekers in the US. It will be loud and furious but that only seems to encourage this man. We have the cudgel firmly in hand. It will be used.

    • but.. but.. but.. Jeff Sessions told a bad joke 30 years ago! How DARE anyone suggest he can be Attorney General!!! (WELL THAT’S WHAT CNN TELLS ME)

      • Sessions has a big job ahead of him. Draining the swamp that the DOJ has become is a daunting task in it’s self but then you add on the plethora of legal challenges that will inevitably be coming down the pike as a Trump WH pushes it’s agenda and the fact that about the only check the leftists have to fight those changes are their judges and the fact that leftists dominate the bureaucracy. Then there is the regular business of the DOJ and add to that the on going investigations of Hillary and the Clinton Foundation pay to play. I don’t envy what is to come for Jefferson Beauregard Sessions.

  14. What the AGs lost is a complicit federal government. Jeff Sessions is as politically far away from the Obama AGs as it is possible to get. His views on the green scam are our views and he is not prone to compromise on principle. He is also more than willing to use the appropriate laws to frustrate the likes of the NY AG.xx

    Trumps initial appointments send a clear signal that he plans to govern as he campaigned. I am optimistic that he will turn the federal government lose on the scam artists and green rent seekers in the US. It will be loud and furious but that only seems to encourage this man. We have the cudgel firmly in hand. It will be used.

  15. What the AGs lost is a complicit federal government. Jeff Sessions is as politically far away from the Obama AGs as it is possible to get. His views on the green scam are our views and he is not prone to compromise on principle. He is also more than willing to use the appropriate laws to frustrate the likes of the NY AG.xxxxxx

    Trumps initial appointments send a clear signal that he plans to govern as he campaigned. I am optimistic that he will turn the federal government lose on the scam artists and green rent seekers in the US. It will be loud and furious but that only seems to encourage this man. We have the cudgel firmly in hand. It will be used.

  16. When I first read the charges that Exxon “knew”, as far back as the 1970s about Global Warming, I thought does anyone recollect the state of the nascent computer industry at that time?
    Process industries were only beginning to implement computational solutions, which would improve yield, increase safety and produce a better product. At that time, a multi-million dollar “Main Frame” IBM computer had lower horse power than today’s Laptop. Also, there were no relational databases or software application solutions. There were no “slice and dice” data marts.
    At that time, the Oil and Gas companies were trying to solve the problems in front of them. Could computation science help?
    For those of us in the computer industry, the solutions to rudimentary, operational issues did not come about until the late 1980s. The allegation against Exxon is, on its face factually impossible.
    Exxon was concentrating computer power on spills, workers safety yield per barrel and financial profit.
    In my opinion, we look at the capabilities of people in the past through the prism of now. Not good.
    This is my opinion. I began my career in computing in 1969. I worked on a team serving a large [non-petro], continuous process corporation for over a decade.
    If this goes to trial on the facts, Exxon will win. There were no tools yesterday to have knowledge of today’s debate.
    What computer were you using in the 1970s or 1980s?

    Regards,

    • Yes, state of the art IBM 360/370 mainframe computers at 512k memory didn’t even have monitors. It was all paper printout. There is more storage in a flash drive than in the big bulky disk platters and reels of tape combined. I concur that since operating time on a computer at that time was very expensive, that next to nothing was done for modeling. It was all devoted to solving the problems at hand. It was only in research centers or a few idiots like me with too much money and time could buy a trash 80 that could run COBOL or Fortran programs, then spend the time programming. And all at a whopping 48 K memory! Or floppy drives that held 700k whoa ! ( I should have used the money to buy stock in Microsoft or Apple when they first came out )

      • My very first computer booted in CPM and had no internal storage at all. I don’t think it had as much computing power as a modern watch. If ExxonKnew anything “in the 70’s” it was that we faced an impending ice age and their products were going to become more and more difficult to obtain in the vast northern unexplored territories.

        The unexplained angle about ‘shareholders’ is how could anyone in the world anticipate that in twenty years a massive global warming and carbon trading scam based of outright fabrication of charts and numbers would be imagineered and implemented globally? Who could have foretold from the information available at the time that more than a dozen AG’s would conspire against one of the largest companies in the world? Where is the shareholders’ risk that should have been communicated? No sane person could have dreampt up this level of collusion and perfidy. Forty years ago a scam on this scale was unimaginable, literally. Even science fiction writers would struggle to sell collusion on the scale we see now. Utter rot in the government, yes, but such a huge portion of academia?

        CAGW has demagnetised the moral compass of academia, and the random misdirection which now contaminates the judiciary is its natural consequence.

    • Robert Doyle: Does my Curta (which I still have) qualify as a computer?. Still a favorite, still know how to do square roots on it. And, yes I remember the punch cards and Fortran from 1968-ish. 24 hour turn around for a shoebox full of cards.. only to find some basic head slapping error, or a single card out of sequence. An amazing run from there to metadata stuff that I still do today.

    • PDP-11 RX-01 (so old at the time I started using them that DEC refused to service them at any price, and we would have to wait for two to fail so we could salvage and get one working), VAX 11/780, and IBM 360. I preferred my Commodore 64 to all of them, though :D.

    • Hear hear! I’ve made many attempts to express those facts, and your comment on seeing the “past through the prism of now” is perfect. Quite a few of the people supporting this nonsense weren’t alive in 1970 and seem to think the world has always been as it is. It amazes me, and I’ll take some delight in using your phrase.

      Personally I was using a CDC Cyber 174. I later graduated to timesharing DEC 11/70s and HP 1000 minis. There’s far more computing power in most people’s phones than existed in 1970’s era mainframes. The idea Exxon could know anything about the impact of fossil fuel use on Earth’s climate is purely absurd.

      +100 sir.

    • 1970s? A Sperry Univac. I learned keypunching and FORTRAN IV as well as BASIC that used a dumb terminal. I also bought a TI-99 programmable calculator in 1979. In the 1980s? An Apple II+ in a pathology laboratory and an Apple IIe personally. Since then, I’ve used several dozen IBM PC clones. I can still use a slide rule ;).

  17. When the USAF sent me to Turkey in 1968 the largest computer there was an IBM 1410. I think that my IPhone has more compute power than that and definitely faster I/O.

    • Ray, your iPhone has that machine beat by a factor of about 1000. Probably more like 10,000. I don’ recall the exact specs on the 1410. Do you know what the clock rate was? I think it was about 200Hz. Today’s processors operate around 2Ghz and use 64 bit registers rather than 8 bit. So the order is more likely to be 1 million times faster, possibly more if you adjust for word/bus size.

  18. “What computer were you using in the 1970s or 1980s?” Vax 11 780, and a very nice machine it was. Completed my CS degree, used it in postgraduate research, and used it for my first non-academic engineering job.

  19. Kinkeade issued the order one day after a telephone status conference with the parties.

    That must have been quite a novelty for the global warmers. They generally prefer to do things in foreign locations that take an awful lot of jet fuel to reach.

  20. But, but, but….. the BEST global temp dataset analysis shows the UHI efffect has absolutely no influence on global temp anomalies …

    Dr. Muller said so…

    Sure, Dr. Judith Curry, Dr. Muller’s assistant in the BEST project, didn’t agree with that assement, but she’s a science “denier”, so her opinion doesn’t count…

    /sarc off

    When the CAGW ho-x is finally tossed in the trash bin of history, CAGW alarmists will blame their feigned ignorance of the actual effects of UHI, cloud cover and “accidental” over-adjustments to raw temperature data for “accidentally” getting everything so wrong for so long…

  21. “We have no choice but to defend ourselves against politically motivated investigations that are biased, in bad faith and without legal merit. We did not start this, but we will see it through and will vigorously defend ourselves against false allegations and mischaracterizations of our climate research and investor communications,” said spokesman Alan Jeffers.

    Make America great again, one lying AG at a time! Good for all of us in the democratic West.

  22. Well said Doglicka [November 18, 2016 at 8:45 pm]: well said indeed.

    This short video clip seems to explain it (in much the same way as you correctly describe) …

    Regards,
    WL

    • It seems the post of NYS AG attracts narssisstic bullies more concerned with political advancement than the law.

  23. I always smile when I see Judge Ed Kinkaide’s name come up. I’ve met him a few times, took a class from him once upon a time. It’s cheap and easy to say “the smartest man I’ve ever met”, so let instead give an example. This was at a public function, and as an important officeholder, Judge Kinkaide took it upon himself to greet the attendees as they arrived. A list of about 200 people who were waiting to greet him, and an aide had compiled a list of who they were. The Judge read that list a single time, set the page down, and then walked over and greeted all 200 by first and last name, with no prompting as though he had always known them. One of the most astounding feats of memory I have ever seen! And it’s not a big story, but it happens to be the one that I witnessed.

    Before meeting Judge Kinkaide, I thought that the term “photographic memory” was a myth. Nope – he’s got it, in spades.

    And needless to say, I take his opinions as the epitome of Sound Judgment.

  24. Various posters here are supporting protectionist policies. Note I enjoyed that Mr Trump won, but this policy is not a winner in terms of GDP, employment etc. The big losers in a protectionist strategy are consumers. And at the end of the day, it is a moot point if more employment is created or lost if you manufacture anywhere on the planet then transport, and commercialise in the US for example. Mark Perry at EIdeas has posted many times on this issue. Many products and jobs that were “offshored” may well be returning because, as costs in China (for example) and transport costs rise, the benefit of offshore manufacture is reduced. With protectionism, what happens is that the biggest lobbies for local manufacture win out, and you end up with expensive local build instead of competitive build wherever it is competitive.

    • Keith commented: “… you end up with expensive local build instead of competitive build wherever it is competitive….”

      And you also end up with people having money to buy it. Why is it protectionism only when we tax or ask for product standards? Try buying an American car in China.

  25. I’m all for doing something about real air pollution, and water pollution, and soil pollution, and as a Teddy Roosevelt type of conservationist I very much want to preserve habitat and ecological balance in wilderness areas. And that’s why I hate and despise and loathe all this phony baloney plastic banana “climate change” BS. It’s downright evil because it is a scientific fraud, a financial fraud, a commercial fraud, an ecological fraud, a spiritual fraud, it is every kind of fraud imaginable. Ironically, it blows smoke around the issues of the environment rather than shedding light on them. It’s almost like the devil figured out a way to help destroy the environment whilst appearing to be trying to save it.

  26. WUWT, someone needs to contact Exxon/Mobile and convince them to promote an Open Source Temperature Reconstruction project. Transparency is what is needed to expose this hoax. Raw data should be published, and then public comments made as to why and how the data should be “adjusted.” Right now the adjustments go unchallenged, and “tricks” to “hide the decline” can pass as acceptable practices. Activists are not the people we need to be managing this data, double-blind testing and transparency is needed. Exxon could save a fortune and do a huge public service by sponsoring an open source temperature reconstruction. The biased Government shouldn’t have a monopoly on the data and interpretation.

    We’ve been warned, and we ignore these warnings at our own peril.

  27. The AGs actually deserve to be disbarred for bringing prosecution in bad faith without legal merit (which constitutes persecution) and in jail for racketeering. Will be interesting if and how the new DOJ AG gets involved in this collusion and abuse of power between states.

  28. The “end justify the means” finely caught up with Hilary and Slick Willy. It will catch with Al Gore and company.

  29. How about using some easily understood facts using universally accepted science to make a most likely 100 year prediction. Then introduce the results of an annual natural experiment that demonstrates the magnitude of the capacity of the earth’s temperature regulating mechanisms to routinely mitigate radiative forcing factors by order of magnitude at least 10 times larger. Finally a disclaimer to the IPCC TAR means they must have known that: (1) the 100 year temperature predictions were over estimated. (2) When the sun heats up the ocean, cloud albedo blocks the sun. (2) The earth air cools by radiating to space. According to the Stefan-Boltzmann Equation the increase in cooling is a function of the temperature raised to the fourth power. A 1% increase in temperature increases cooling 4%. (3) Conduction is a function of the temperature difference between the earth’s surface and the earth’s surface air. If the earth’s surface air temperature increases 1.0 degrees Kelvin the conduction-convection forcing factor has to decrease 5.2 watts per square meter. (4) Ocean sequestration of heat is another powerful air temperature mitigating mechanism. The heat capacity of the top 700 meters of the ocean is 1000 times greater than the heat capacity of the air.

    The earth’s air mitigates a 24 watts per square meter annual solar radiative forcing cycle but according to the global warming advocates theory can’t mitigate a 2 watts per square meter increase in radiative forcing from a 100 year increase in carbon dioxide. On January, fifth, the solar radiation on the earth is 354 watts per square meter. On July, fifth, the solar radiation is 330wpsm. When the sun’s radiation power per area is 23.5wpsm greater the earth’s air temperature is 3 degrees Kelvin colder. ThinkProgress doesn’t know enough about science to even understand the natural physical mechanisms that mitigate earth’s air temperature during its elliptical path around the sun. Carbon dioxide is increasing 1.78 parts per million per year. The theoretical scientific 100 year increase in radiation power per area is 1.97wpsm. The 100 year carbon dioxide increase in radiation power is 11.9 times smaller than the annual solar radiation power cycle but the global warming theory public policy advocates fail to explain why these same powerful natural physical mechanisms can’t also mitigate such a small determinant of the earth’s air temperature. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, The Third Assessment Report, Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis confirmed that human activity has no effect on the earth’s air temperature. Only a willfully ignorant progressive could read the first footnote for policy makers and still believe that human activity causes global warming or climate change. And only an irredeemably evil person could also still believe in the rest of the anti-human progressive agenda. In case you hadn’t noticed the progressives use fraud and use the coercive threat of physical violence by the government to advance their agenda.

    The IP address for the earth’s annual absolute temperature cycle is: https://ghrc.nsstc.nasa.gov/amsutemps/amsutemps.pl
    Scroll down until you see the colored years. Select near surface temperatures channel 4, degrees Kelvin, and year 2006. Notice that for January the temperature is 258 degrees Kelvin and for July the temperature is 261 degrees Kelvin. When the earth is closest to the sun the earth air is 3 degrees Kelvin colder.
    The IP address for Earth Orbit — Wikipedia is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_orbit
    Notice in the second paragraph under the heading Events in orbit the following sentence. “The changing Earth-Sun distance results in an increase of about 6.9% (footnote 8) in total solar energy reaching the Earth at perihelion relative to aphelion.” Next scroll down to the table labeled Orbital Characteristics. The earth’s aphelion is 94.51 million miles from the sun and the perihelion is 91.40 million miles from the sun. The ratio is 1.034. Because of the inverse square rule the solar radiation power per area at the perihelion is 1.069 times higher than at the aphelion. 1.034 squared equals 1.069. (0.069*340.4wpsm=23.5wpsm) The difference in solar radiative forcing between July and January is +23.5wpsm and the earth’s air is 3 degrees Kelvin colder.
    From the IPCC Third Assessment Report on Climate Change 2001 1st footnote from page 5 Summary for Policy Makers 1… http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fnspm.htm#1

    “Climate change in IPCC usage refers to any change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity. This usage differs from that in the Framework Convention on Climate Change, where climate change refers to a change of climate that is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and that is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.

  30. Correction to previous comment. …the conduction-convection forcing factor has to be reduced 1.6 watts per square meter, (0.31*5.2=1.6). The other 69% of the energy comes from infrared radiation previously radiated directly to space.

Comments are closed.