23 Replies to “Y2Kyoto: The Green Police”

  3. You know what’s great? This admission from Kenneth Cohen, VP for public affairs at ExxonMobil:
    “Mr. Cohen, of Exxon, said on Thursday that the company had made common cause with [groups from the 1990s to the mid-2000s that denied serious climate risks] largely because it agreed with them on a policy goal of keeping the United States out of a global climate treaty called the Kyoto Protocol.
    “We stopped funding them in the middle part of the past decade because a handful of them were making the uncertainty of the science their focal point,” Mr. Cohen said. “Frankly, we made the call that we needed to back away from supporting the groups that were undercutting the actual risk” of climate change. “We recognize the risk,” Mr. Cohen added.”
    I guess you’ll have to start boycotting Esso, Mobil, and Exxon stations (along with Shell, and Petro-Canada, and Husky, and…).
    – http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/06/science/exxon-mobil-under-investigation-in-new-york-over-climate-statements.html?_r=0

  5. so Exxon will surrender the fight for their shareholders interests to protect their shareholders interests?
    I hope they have the sense to fight this extortion.
    Just the discovery phase will be raw comedy.
    Yes your honour we have no measured global warming traceable to Exxon.
    No your worship we know of no federal or state laws broken by Exxon.
    No measured change in climate in this time period.
    Yes Exxon scientists contributed to the IPCC.
    We have no measured damages to the State…
    We have yet to agree upon a definition of Climate Change, for the purposes of this court…
    A team of well financed(Exxon) lawyers, will have a field day in court, hopefully the counter suit is aimed at the State Prosecutor personally, abuse of office due to stupidity or malice.
    More importantly one hopes Exxon realizes just how pernicious this government attack is.
    Failure to resist will cost their stockholder all of their investment, as this kind of corruption by lawfare knows no limits.

  7. “Kind of like harpers alleged “muzzling” of scientists”
    You mean the belief that when the government pays hundreds of thousands for scientific research, the government should own the information generated and not the scientist. You are being unreasonable. Next thing your going to demand is that civil servants do some work and not be on the internet all day. You are dangerous.

  8. It reinforces Churchill’s quote to the effect that appeasement is throwing your friends to the alligator in the hope that he will eat you last. Large businesses should have taken a page from the NRA and recognized that the only thing you’ll get in exchange for buying off the demands of the enviro-hustlers is another set of demands. The businesses like Exxon should have fought them in court good and hard, right from the get go. Now they’re stuck being terrorized by the very groups they’ve indirectly, or in some cases directly, funded and tacitly supported.

  9. A corporate shakedown if there ever was. Exxon didn’t create the CO2, those who used the petroleum did, which is the whole world.

  10. I read three articles about this and not one of them have any specific information about the case. Just a vague reference to some research in the 70’s that AGW/climate change might have dangerous consequences. Unless I’m missing something this seems to be a witch hunt designed to bully companies into compliance. No wonder they genufect at the green altar, confess their sins and offer to pay for indulgences (which they simply pass on to the customer). Well, that and getting rich off subsidies and CO2 trading schemes, of course.
    Regarding the science and the risks associated with man made CO2: the sensitivity values of the IPCC models (temp rise due to a doubling of CO2)range from 1C to 6C with the lower end being the most likely according to the newest research and observations. That range is huge and once you include natural cycles and natural variation then the temperature can go dangerously negative (like the Little Ice Age) to rapid (and beneficial) warming like the Medieval and Roman Warm Period. After decades of research and millions of dollars spent on reports, the current IPCC models are still horribly inaccurate (observed values are on the extreme low end of the models) and imprecise (the max-min range is massive compared to the actual signal). So even if Exxon did make a report, how is it a crime? How can anyone be hiding anything if the science is so immature and the climate system so complex that any medium to long term prediction is a crap shoot? If that’s the threshold for fraud then the IPCC should be charges with fraud too because their models are awful and the costs associated with acting on these models has been huge (tens of billions of dollars per year).

  11. The very idea that environmental goals are not the WORK of big oil is ridicules…The higher the price of OIL result in a greater return of profits for Big Oil. The Environmental group solutions & big oil profit projections fit hand-in-glove. Big oil created the Green slime
    The oil companies are not friends of consumers, they are all part of the BS game that is played out

  13. “Exxon Mobil denies any duplicity, citing years of internal research that support global warming theories and risk disclosures to investors.”
    Well there you have it. Swing, you suck-holing bastards. What did you expect was going to happen once you started playing their game?

  14. In less then three weeks the turkeys will be ariving in paris to come up with more idiotic regulations for the rest ous to follow they themselves with of course be exempt from these same regulations and laws such as the privlage of the birds who sit on top of the roost of authority while us lower birds have to take their crap

  16. Yes, and the reduced standard of living and transfer of public money from the poor and middle class to the rich and well-connected will accomplish what? According to Lomborg, it will reduce about 0.17C degrees of warming below business as usual by 2100. But Lomborg is a dirty rotten denier according to the good and the great of CAGW, right? Well, MIT DID come up with a different result: .20C of warming averted. Yep, a multi-billion dollar reversion from reliable and affordable energy to intermittent and expensive energy; billions per year in carbon pricing/trading; 100 billion a year given to the brutal,corrupt regimes in developing countries……all to avert two tenths of a degree of warming by 2100. Take a bow precautionary principle. Bravo, economists and journalists. Congratulations, politicians. Good work, crony capitalists and activists.
    https://reason.com/blog/2015/11/10/climate-progress-resident-hysteric-attac#comment

  17. Micheal Mann sits on their board of directors. That tells me everything I need to know about them.

  18. Micheal Mann sits on their board of directors. That tells me everything I need to know about them.

  19. I’m not a huge fan of using conspiracy theory angles against CAGW. Though, as an atheist, I do mock the rather overt religious aspects of catastrophic AGW: Burn The Heretics, Prepare for the Apocalypse, Repent Repent Repent. Frankly, some CAGW predictions would make Harold Camping blush. If you look at CAGW’s “scientific” predictions from the 80s and 90s about how awful things would be by now, you can see why they and the journalists who reported their ravings as fact should be embarrassed. But, no, the same people are making the same outrageous predictions about the future and journalists still report it without question.
    I prefer science and data to speculation (real data not the dubious, tortured numbers that is produced as evidence) . My only comment would be that CAGW science, skeptical science and lukewarmer science/scientists should all be held up to the same standard. For example, NOAA’s refusal to release documents about the rationale for the huge sea surface temperature adjustments to erase The Pause should be as vigorously examined as Exxon’s documents from 40 years ago.

  20. If an entity can be sued because they “misled the public and/or their investors about the “risks” of climate change.” then all I can say is what a precedent! Al Gore, David Suzuki, IPCC, the UN and CBC pension fund – all mine!!!
    Just the gems in the ‘Inconvenient Truth’ not to mention the ridiculous claims proceeding any climate conference will set me up for life.
    Actually I will settle for Gore’s beach front property and a couple of billion pocket change.
    Interestingly enough in the 70’s Exxon would be investigating global cooling. Can we sue because they got that wrong? Gore told us so.

  21. The greens own version of the Spanish Inqustions persicute anyone who rjects this global warming poppycock try the so called Climate Crinimals(in the minds of Granola munchers Tree Huggers)and those who refuse to worship Gaia and celebrate christmas instead of Earthday

  22. Perhaps a better solution here is needed. Exxon-Mobil, Shell, BP, and all the oil and gas refiners and sellers, should turn off the taps, NOW. Remind Americans, that fossil fuels are essential to the economy, and without it, everything comes to a standstill, forthwith. Its time the environuts be called out and shown who is boss.
    It would be like 2008 all over again, just to demonstrate what is more important, namely JOBS and the ECONOMY, not a fraudulent, disproven theory of global wealth redistribution, ‘AGW’.

  23. BP used to be called British Petrolium changed their name to Beyond Petrolium then cuased the bit mess in the gulf of mexico and The Nature Conservency got donations from them

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation