tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post6876122140587984643..comments2024-03-19T03:14:04.172-04:00Comments on Rabett Run: Estopping ExxonEliRabetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-43029741496001023712015-11-12T02:51:27.191-05:002015-11-12T02:51:27.191-05:00Thanks for the correction, FLw - shows what I know...Thanks for the correction, FLw - shows what I know about New York state law. Have to be careful with this stuff.<br /><br />Snarkrates - I think there might be a wire fraud issue here, and misrepresentation to the public under various Business and Profession codes. But again, not my legal field.Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09301230860904555513noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-68749365656616168912015-11-11T23:36:38.715-05:002015-11-11T23:36:38.715-05:00Brian: "under the law, fraud requires the in...Brian: "under the law, fraud requires the intent to deceive, and figuring out the intent of an artificial person (a corporation) isn't necessarily simple."<br /><br />Except in this case the statute in question apparently does not require proof of intent to deceive. <br /><br />"Under the (1921) Martin Act, the state must prove that a company deceived the public by misrepresenting or omitting a material fact in the offering of securities. Lawyers say the act is unique in that no proof of intent to deceive is required to bring a claim, and prosecutors do not even need to show that anyone was in fact defrauded. The act allows for criminal as well as civil charges."<br /><br />http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/07/us-exxon-mobil-climatechange-case-idUSKCN0SW01M20151107#wrqOKoefq1KxmyYc.99<br />FLwolverinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15714397414422766313noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-7535130304799595362015-11-11T13:03:51.417-05:002015-11-11T13:03:51.417-05:00"Actually, the issue wrt the Exx-Mob is not w...<i>"Actually, the issue wrt the Exx-Mob is not whether they have the right to misrepresent the science to the public, but whether they have the right to misrepresent what the science implies for their shareholders. "</i><br /><br />But their shareholders must be very pleased indeed with their propaganda efforts - it is why they still continue to sell carbon that is burned.<br /><br />And you all don't get it, yet. This is not an issue of free speech. It is an issue of harm - physical, economic, biologic and of harm to the Democratic process.<br /><br />This is also about evil. What Exxon-Mobil et al have done is evil at its highest level. This is a case of poisoning not just the biosphere, but of the democratic process, of our civilization's future, and the process of rationale debate - for the sake of profiteers. This is about the murder in slow motion of millions if not billions of people and species so a few could become even more wealthy. This is about a crime against humanity, which may be:<br /><br />"...particularly odious offenses in that they constitute a serious attack on human dignity or grave humiliation or a degradation of human beings. They are not isolated or sporadic events, but are part either of a government policy (although the perpetrators need not identify themselves with this policy) or of a wide practice of atrocities tolerated or condoned by a government or a de facto authority..."<br /><br />I would point out that crimes against humanity do not have to be associated with war crimes. And again, I would point out the case against Goebbels - who physically never harmed any Jew. He was, simply, a propagandist who helped to harm people.Gingerbakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14211637630936981883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-51429399614941472932015-11-11T10:53:23.465-05:002015-11-11T10:53:23.465-05:00Same documents will have to surface, snarkrates.
...Same documents will have to surface, snarkrates. <br />But this case is not the big calibre we may expect later. cRR Kampenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07571285063752477448noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-57919706139854169512015-11-11T08:16:20.690-05:002015-11-11T08:16:20.690-05:00Actually, the issue wrt the Exx-Mob is not whether...Actually, the issue wrt the Exx-Mob is not whether they have the right to misrepresent the science to the public, but whether they have the right to misrepresent what the science implies for their shareholders. Two very different things.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-85233891330375167812015-11-11T04:58:36.384-05:002015-11-11T04:58:36.384-05:00A weak result, but something: http://insideclimate...A weak result, but something: http://insideclimatenews.org/news/10112015/peabody-coal-climate-change-settlement-new-york-ag-exxon-subpoena-investigation .<br /><br />"These nice folks, and others, already have the blood of millions on their hands according to a U.N. study, and why they have yet not been frogmarched to the ICC at The Hague is a sad tale indeed."<br /><br />Hear, hear!cRR Kampenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07571285063752477448noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-3127388963346499852015-11-11T02:13:26.846-05:002015-11-11T02:13:26.846-05:00Russell, I assure you that the First Amendment isn...Russell, I assure you that the First Amendment isn't a defense against a fraud allegation.<br /><br />(Actually one Supreme Court justice did think that it was, but none of his colleagues agreed).Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09301230860904555513noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-7143709875519780272015-11-11T01:02:05.436-05:002015-11-11T01:02:05.436-05:00How does that compare to prosecuting scientists wh...How does that compare to prosecuting scientists who yell 'crowd' in a crowded theater, and then calmly announce to the crowd that there is a big fire many miles down the road that they might want to be aware of.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-42977922649455385382015-11-11T00:02:48.889-05:002015-11-11T00:02:48.889-05:00Is Brian happy with subordinating the First Amendm...Is Brian happy with subordinating the First Amendment to the criminal prosecution of the misrepresentation of science to the public ?THE CLIMATE WARShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02578106673226403151noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-64474536772260141652015-11-10T18:04:35.595-05:002015-11-10T18:04:35.595-05:00GB - under the law, fraud requires the intent to d...GB - under the law, fraud requires the intent to deceive, and figuring out the intent of an artificial person (a corporation) isn't necessarily simple. So you're right, several Exxon scientists reaching a conclusion doesn't mean that Exxon as an entity reached that conclusion.<br /><br />OTOH, their conclusion was spread throughout the upper management and AFAIK there was no pushback. If there's an as-yet unreleased Exxon Board of Directors transcript that sounds like Republican Senators saying the Bible proves that climate change is impossible and they flatly disbelieve it, that would actually help them out. My impression is that's not how Exxon operated, though.<br /><br />And btw, Goebbels murdered his children and committed suicide just before the end of the war. I don't think he was charged by the Allies.Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09301230860904555513noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-81133621623227395012015-11-10T12:06:13.107-05:002015-11-10T12:06:13.107-05:00Who cares what their own scientists said? Did they...Who cares what their own scientists said? Did they even publish through peer review? If not, and even if they did, it is just in-house opinion -or- the opinion of only 3 or 4 scientists. Exxon management surely has the freedom to ignore the internal opinions of 3 or 4 of their 40,000 employees.<br /><br />What is important here, and evidently the Law does not understand this, is that Exxon ignored the consensus opinion of virtually every climate scientist on the planet and then paid bad actors to undermine that opinion through a decades-long campaign of propaganda that has resulted in injury to people and property.<br /><br />Regardless of what their in-house scientists said, they KNEW that their propaganda was lies from the get go.<br /><br />The last time a propaganda campaign caused any where near this much injury, the propagandist was charged with crimes against humanity. His name was Joseph Goebbels, and if convicted, he was to be hanged.Gingerbakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14211637630936981883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-5719964516164870952015-11-10T11:52:18.891-05:002015-11-10T11:52:18.891-05:00Brian @4:09 "The other fossil fuel companies ...Brian @4:09 "The other fossil fuel companies may also have understood the science - we just don't know that yet. If they did their own internal reviews, and reached the same conclusion Exxon did, they stand in the same fragile legal position."<br /><br />Which is basically what got the tobacco companies in trouble. Their internal documents said one thing and their public remarks said the opposite.<br /><br />Jeffrey Davishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17966839006518642902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-62513364991980673552015-11-08T15:11:09.525-05:002015-11-08T15:11:09.525-05:00Circa 1974, ANY Chemical Engineer that knew enough...Circa 1974, ANY Chemical Engineer that knew enough to design an oil refinery or plastics production facility knew enough of the science to know that global warming was a real issue.<br /><br />Such people had spent a lot of time doing infrared spectrophotometry, which rather rubbed one's nose into the interactions between between the atmosphere and various carbon compounds. <br /><br />Exxon may have been the only one that published, but they all knew. As documents from companies that Exxon bought come to light, this will be revealed. Aaronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05150805906414546377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-47619924226932351202015-11-06T21:46:53.308-05:002015-11-06T21:46:53.308-05:00(Thank you, Brian.)(Thank you, Brian.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-60472038040487559102015-11-06T20:35:26.684-05:002015-11-06T20:35:26.684-05:00Did they produce a climate sensitivity estimate ?Did they produce a climate sensitivity estimate ?THE CLIMATE WARShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02578106673226403151noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-35531541064672479312015-11-06T19:09:29.204-05:002015-11-06T19:09:29.204-05:00Wheel and GB - the legal issue is that having done...Wheel and GB - the legal issue is that having done some of the science themselves with results that fit squarely in the mainstream consensus, Exxon was lying when it said via its CEO and via denialists it funded that the science is uncertain/the science is wrong, respectively.<br /><br />Supposedly this is a distinction between Exxon and other fossil fuel companies that plausibly believed their own nonsense. I'm not so sure, however.<br /><br />What truly distinguishes Exxon is that it produced science on the issue, unlike the other companies, but what's legally relevant is that it understood the overall science. We know that it understood because of the science it produced and because of internal documents being released. The other fossil fuel companies may also have understood the science - we just don't know that yet. If they did their own internal reviews, and reached the same conclusion Exxon did, they stand in the same fragile legal position.Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09301230860904555513noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-73596068194487738862015-11-06T16:22:24.163-05:002015-11-06T16:22:24.163-05:00Thanks for the clarification, Gingerbaker. Sorry I...Thanks for the clarification, Gingerbaker. Sorry I misinterpreted you.<br /><br />I would think that Exxon's representatives lying about the company's findings (or, perhaps, "lying about evidence that was reflected in their findings") would be the larger legal issue, but only because it strikes me as more "iffy" ("icky?") from an ethical standpoint.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-43078166285655076072015-11-06T15:32:39.442-05:002015-11-06T15:32:39.442-05:00The opeds memes of 'Climate Change Is Just Lik...The opeds memes of 'Climate Change Is Just Like Tobacco' are already starting to fly. That will be their next defense on this. Minimization.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-52102109266373966732015-11-06T11:42:46.482-05:002015-11-06T11:42:46.482-05:00"Uhhh...what? I thought the issue was that th..."Uhhh...what? I thought the issue was that they PRODUCED that science, and then paid people to publicly subvert it in official testimony."<br /><br />Yes - that is, somehow, important to the legal issue. <br /><br /> My point, obviously not expressed very well, is that Exxon's own internal scientific reports seem to me to be irrelevant to the larger issue - that they knowingly did their utmost to subvert the consensus work of experts in the field, an effort resulting in harm to the public.<br /><br />These nice folks, and others, already have the blood of millions on their hands according to a U.N. study, and why they have yet not been frogmarched to the ICC at The Hague is a sad tale indeed. Gingerbakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14211637630936981883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-88497335954217860252015-11-06T11:13:08.571-05:002015-11-06T11:13:08.571-05:00Uhhh...what? I thought the issue was that they PRO...Uhhh...what? I thought the issue was that they PRODUCED that science, and then paid people to publicly subvert it in official testimony.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-66791037515604502422015-11-06T10:09:58.170-05:002015-11-06T10:09:58.170-05:00Hmmm... what did the Bard say about the law?
Sad...Hmmm... what did the Bard say about the law?<br /><br /> Sad that it is Exxon's previous actions which bear legally on the fact that they knowingly and deliberately funded a campaign of false propaganda which will result in the deaths of millions of people and species, and will cause economic harm in the tens or hundreds of trillions of dollars.<br /><br />That they were briefed on the science in the 1970's really doesn't make campaign of the last twenty-five years any worse.Gingerbakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14211637630936981883noreply@blogger.com