What will Bill and the McKibbenites of 350.org do now? Oh Noes!
From Climate Litigation Watch:
Donor-, Tort Lawyer-Prompted NY AG Climate “Fraud” Suit Crashes, Burns
In its “fraud” pursuit of ExxonMobil as a proxy for the energy industry, and anyone who might dare to oppose the climate agenda again, the New York Attorney General failed to clear the lowest bar ever established for such matters, the Martin Act.
This is what happens when law enforcement launches abusive investigations and prosecution at the behest of donors and the plaintiffs’ tort bar. The nasty story of how all this came about is laid out in documentary form here.
This is not good news for Massachusetts’ AG Maura Healey who leapt in, filing her own suit as the NY AG’s meltdown became apparent, to — one would be forgiven for concluding — avoid filing in the wake of this disaster.
FULL STORY HERE: https://climatelitigationwatch.org/donor-tort-lawyer-prompted-ny-ag-climate-fraud-suit-crashes-burns/
UPDATE:
Here is the court’s opinion:
https://climatelitigationwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/452044-2018-Op-12.10.19.pdf
The sordid history of this abuses, as we knew it in August 2018, is here.
Much more is now known, some of which CLW posted in recent weeks.
Much more is coming.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Read the ruling. The key sentence is the last. The action was dismissed with prejudice. That means it failed so miserably that nothing of the sort can be brought again.
Well, not exactly. The AG gang tried to get a climate change decision by taking a detour through securities law. The judge also said (paraphrasing here), that “nothing relieves Exxon Mobile of its responsibility for causing climate change through greenhouse gas emissions”, but that this was a suit brought under the Martin Act and was decided under the applicable standards of that act.
This just means Exxon didn’t materially mislead investors, and there wasn’t even a faint suggestion of evidence presented that they did. There were some not so subtle comments on the flimsiness of the AG’s case.
If you want to use the courts to litigate climate change, you can’t use securities law to do it.
I am a complete layman here. If “nothing relieves Exxon Mobile of its responsibility for causing climate change through greenhouse gas emissions” then, can the AG be held to account for environmental and ecological damage, and the affects on farmers being confronted by wind and solar power?
“nothing relieves Exxon Mobile of its responsibility for causing climate change through greenhouse gas emissions”
Maybe the judge was just tossing a bone to Naomi Oreskes.
“People of the State of New York v. Exxon Mobil”
People of the State of New York = Losers. Fact.
That must be why Trump moved to Florida. He didn’t want to be associated with those New Yorkers anymore.
Having read the judgement–How can Attorneys General launch a lawsuit, with this much publicity, and costing this much, that ends up this wrong and contrary to law, and not be immediately ousted for misrepresentation of qualifications in accepting the position? How valid is a country’s legal system if they are allowed to remain in their positions the day after such a judgement is tabled?
The judge’s ruling makes extensive reference to case law and to the relevant Acts in the judgement. Did these Attorneys General have no knowledge of any of this when they launched the suit? Does the US Legal System have no requirement for the lawyers working in it to have acquired and considered this knowledge before launching lawsuits?
Rhetorical questions I am sure, ones that are generally met with eyes downcast at the floor and an uncomfortable shuffling of feet–but no answers from the profession other than to be told to ‘mind your own business’; they seem to like things just the way they are. On both sides–and the judge–everybody got paid. The State budgets will have to increase slightly, and the cost of gas will increase slightly to pay them.
But something sure seems to need an overhaul here. The entire suit ended up being ‘without merit’ and no-one is accountable but the taxpayer and gas customer–which just happens to end up being the same wallet, and one that is not allowed to be involved other than to pay the bill or go to jail.
The purpose of the law was to promote the AGs involved and to promote the cause.
That goal was achieved. The fact that they lost isn’t relevant since way more people heard about the cases being brought than will ever hear about them being dismissed.
https://twitter.com/ncdave4life/status/1204438067026780160
Wow. Just Wow!!!!!!!!
I just finished reading through the entire 55page opinion. What a thorough evisceration by Judge Ostranger of the NY OAG’s attempt to shakedown XOM.
All I can say is “Wow!”
Judge Ostranger’s opinion is some very good, easy to read distilling of how empty were the NY-OAGs actions.
Judge Ostranger noted that the two expert witnesses brought in to analyze and testify by NY-OAG, Dr Eli Bartov and Mr Peter Boukouzis, were “fundamentally flawed” and their testimony “eviscerated on cross-examination and by Exxon-Mobile’s expert witnesses.” Double Ouch!!!
Leticia James two experts were totally destroyed by the testimony and the evidence in the Judge’s opinion.
Also of note is the final signed statement from the Judge, the claims asserted are “denied” and “the action is dismissed with prejudice.”
The “with prejudice” is particular damning to the NY-OAG in that this was a merit-less legal action from the states highest legal officer.
Ouch!!!
Judge Ostranger clearly grasped how fundamentally flawed all of the NY-OAG testimony was. It was also clear he did not take kindly to the Plaintiff’s withdrawal the Fraud charges at the end of the trail during Closings in order to avoid an adverse ruling. He gave one anyways on those, as requested by XOM lawyers. More ouch to Ms James and her shake-down team.
Once you read through the whole Opinion, XOM comes out very good from a PR stand-point. It carefully and fully articulated GHG costs and proxy costs in all ways per standards of the investment industry. They used a huge bunch of proprietary fiancial models prepared by their professional staff of analysts, scientists, and engineers to understand projects’ risks and investment returns. It was clear that the outside “academic” experts brought in by NY-OAG were totally above-the-heads and clueless with that level of sophistication.
I mean this is a true Professional embarrassment for the NY-OAG. In the Private World, such a ruling would get people fired. Of course in the Democrat’s political world bubble, they’ll just ignore it.
One would think that there would be consequences for such a frivolous lawsuit but not for our dear lefties.
They will spin it such as “the humble public servant dared to take on the Evil Empire Climate Killers and she fought the brave fight. She would have won but the judge must obviously be a paid shill for the Evil Empire. But fear not we will raise your taxes and file again because truth is on our side.”
Or some other drivel to that effect.
Apparently they will keep fighting even though law and climate are not on their side.
“This isn’t the end. The fossil fuel industry must be held liable for the climate crisis. We will keep fighting to #MakeThemPay #ExxonKnew”
350.org is really a home is psycho-extremist nut-bars. Checking their twit feed I see a war in Canada started. lol.
“#TransMountain pipeline is #indigenous #genocide in Canada. Colonization is an act of war”
I suppose bluejeans too are genocide.
Blue jeans?? Sounds racist.
It also seems to me that Billionaire Mikey Bloomberg should be pissed that the attorneys he paid to put in place to discredit Big Oil .
Not only did they waste his dirty money, but that their work greatly bolstered the view that Exxon-Mobile (XOM) was and is careful and meticulous in planning for a wide-range of GHG cost scenarios on projects and that XOM exhibits high standards of corporate responsibility to investors.
I think it’s likely the other states OAGs will likely slink and slither away now with this epic slapdown of the NY-OAG and their #Exxxon-knew shakedown scheme. At least that would be the sane response.
But then trying to understand the irrational insanity of today’s Democrats is itself a dubious endeavor.
from page 54 – “The testimony of the expert witnesses called by the Office of the Attorney General was eviscerated on cross-examination…”
Ouch. No matter what you think about climate change, it’s not good when a judge says that about your case.
Exxon Mobil prevails in New York climate change lawsuit
Judge ruled no evidence showed investors were misled
https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/exxon-mobil-prevails-climate-change-lawsuit-1.5390682
Oh dear!
What will McKibben and Oreskes do for their next ultra expensive swan song boondoggle?
This legal action was supposed have a cascade effect demonizing fossil fuel companies and exposing their alleged schemes; exactly as happened to the Tobacco industry… i.e. Exxon was supposed to release smoking gun disclosures previously hidden from the public.
Except, the only thing previously hidden were proprietary financial models; now exposed by NY A.G. and proven by the same A.G. to be faultless.
Any highlighting is my doing:
Imagine that. Big oil was honest and truthful.
It was McKibben, Oreskes, Rockefeller Foundation, Bloomberg and the New York’s A.G. Office who were not honest, truthful or correct at any allegation.
Pity that they never admit to being ashamed of their false actions.
You forgot to mention that bit where, as the verdict was pronounced, Greta Thunberg burst dramatically through the courtroom doors and snarled, “How dare you!”
BBC Report on this: –
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50733127
It may surprise some readers of the excellent WUWT that the BBC’s slant is a little different to the comments above: for example, at 2140Z, they end their report with –
“New York Attorney General Letitia James said despite her loss in court, the case had forced Exxon to “answer publicly” about its decision-making related to climate change.
“We will continue to fight to ensure companies are held responsible for actions that undermine and jeopardize the financial health and safety of Americans across our country, and we will continue to fight to end climate change,” she said in a statement.”
The word ‘eviscerate’ does not appear in the BBC report.
Shock Horror.
Auto
Noting that Boris J has suggested that the BBC’s tax – the TV Licence – might be reviewed in the next Parliament. And if the BBC wasn’t against the Tories before – it sure will be now!
At least people in the UK can choose to pay for their BBC; no TV, no tax.
In Australia, their ABC is funded from general revenue. All tax payers support it whether they use it or not.
It would be terrible for UK if Boris abolished licence fees. The first step should be to abolish the BBC.
Noting that Boris J has suggested that the BBC’s tax – the TV Licence – might be reviewed in the next Parliament. And if the BBC wasn’t against the Tories before – it sure will be now!
That’s the problem for government teat suckers when they choose sides in politics, when the other side is in power it puts their access to the government teat in jeopardy. I shed no tears for Aunty Beeb.
I’m glad I wrote to the president of EXXON to show them my support to defend themselves and not roll over.
Love the quote from the new York AG:
Good luck with that one, petal.
Could have been a one sentence opinion from the judge-“how could Exxon ’know’ when you clowns don’t even know?”
Should flagrant abuse of tort law cause lawyers to be disbarred?
There are many useful flaws and exceptions in the system that normal folk are not meant to see until the elites have to tap one to conduct their special operation and win the day at any cost. In this case failing in court is winning in the special art of promotion and media ad buy hits. Science and justice are lofty irrelevant terms for them here.
“We activists will NOT be dissuaded or repelled by logic, facts, or law… We will prevail because the human species is so willing to believe anything reported by a “authoritarian source” – like a TV or news organization, or elected official, or self appointed messiah.”
I don’t expect this to ruling to have ANY affect on the insane.
one down how many more to go, the climate chicken little are committing law fare against the oil companies. would be interest to see if oil/gas could not flow to New York how that would play out. Cuomo has already opened up the gas company to liabilities where it does not have the infrastructure to provide gas to all the homes in new york needing it.
climate science knew as far back as Callendar 1938
The other aspect of the war against the oil industry is that oil and gas production lowers the pressure that forces out the natural hydrocarbon seeps. Without oil and gas production, the seepage rate will increase and undermine much of the apparent advantage to the climate of not producing oil and gas. No matter how much one hates hydrocarbons the fact is that we live on a hydrocarbon planet and we ourselves are carbon life forms made from that stuff.
https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/08/27/carbonflows/
Someone should pay Exxon’s legal fees, but it should not be the taxpayer. The plaintiffs firms behind this have hundreds of millions of dollars and should be taught a lesson about the risks of corrupting federal prosecutors with their scams.
And to give some more background, this is ExxonMobil’s view when this all started of how they didn’t mislead the public or shareholders:
Quote from ExxonMobil:
“For a few months now, ExxonMobil has been hit by a series of politically motivated legal attacks related to our climate research.
Amid all the tumult, it’s easy to lose track of the most elemental – if not the most important – facts about our corporation’s position on climate change.
So let me take this opportunity to restate it.
At ExxonMobil, we believe the risks of climate change are real.
We are actively working to reduce greenhouse emissions in our own operations and to help our customers reduce their emissions as well.”
https://energyfactor.exxonmobil.com/perspectives/exxonmobil-climate-change/
ExxonMobil won the case since it was found they didn’t hide the facts they realised AGW was real and that they had in fact let people know about it!
Quote from ExxonMobil:
“ExxonMobil recognizes the risks posed by climate change, and we believe that everyone should be engaged in meaningful action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”
https://energyfactor.exxonmobil.com/exxonmobil-responds-state-ags/