Seduction Spa

16 Democrat AGs Begin Inquisition Against ‘Climate Change Disbelievers’

Previous Thread Next Thread
K

K Douglas

Half Man Half Amazing
Jan 5, 2005
27,864
8,652
113
Room 112
fuji said:
None of that is relevant. What will be relevant are statements from internal company documents indicating what the executives of the company knew, and when they knew it.

You keep trying to position this as a debate over the science. It isn't.
Click to expand...
Of course it's a debate over the science, finally we are seeing it instead of a simple declaration based on faulty computer models. People are finally starting to wake up and get themselves educated although it's been slower amongst those with lib left leanings. They prefer to be sheeple.
 
F

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
80,010
8
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
K Douglas said:
Of course it's a debate over the science, finally we are seeing it instead of a simple declaration based on faulty computer models. People are finally starting to wake up and get themselves educated although it's been slower amongst those with lib left leanings. They prefer to be sheeple.
Click to expand...
THIS thread is about the investigation into whether a number of companies committed fraud by making public statements that their own private communications show they knew to be false. Or companies that were intentionally fabricating data in order to intentionally mislead.

I think there are a number of other threads where people are debating the science.
 
F

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
94,256
23,711
113
K Douglas said:
Of course it's a debate over the science, finally we are seeing it instead of a simple declaration based on faulty computer models. People are finally starting to wake up and get themselves educated although it's been slower amongst those with lib left leanings. They prefer to be sheeple.
Click to expand...
The models predicted the rise in temperatures we are seeing today.
Just as Exxon projected the same increases in temperature that climatologists projected and the same increases that we see today.
Exxon and the IPCC's work has been verified by the planet.


 
M

Moviefan-2

Court Jester
Oct 17, 2011
10,489
172
63
fuji said:
You keep trying to position this as a debate over the science. It isn't.
Click to expand...
No, I have not positioned this as a debate about science. My statements related to the science were in response to your "knew to be false" nonsense. I pointed to the evidence to show that "knew to be false" was a false premise -- then and now.

This isn't about science. Nor is it a debate about "fraud" or any other crime.

It's a debate about religious dogma and freedom of speech.

To paraphrase something I read today, ExxonMobil is being prosecuted for possibly expressing views that weren't sufficiently alarmist for some Democrats. That is not a crime, nor should it be.
 
F

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
94,256
23,711
113
Moviefan-2 said:
To paraphrase something I read today, ExxonMobil is being prosecuted for expressing views that weren't sufficiently alarmist for some Democrats. That is not a crime, nor should it be.
Click to expand...
Exxon is being sued for fraud for lying about the effects of their products on climate change after their own internal investigations showed it was harmful.
That is a crime.
 
M

Moviefan-2

Court Jester
Oct 17, 2011
10,489
172
63
Frankfooter said:
Was it totalitarianism when scientists were subpoenaed to testify in front of congress?
Click to expand...
Nice try.

I don't have an issue with subpoenas. But you endorsed completely baseless subpoenas with the rationalization that "if they didn't do anything wrong then they have nothing to worry about."

That's not how things work in countries that believe in the rule of law.
 
M

Moviefan-2

Court Jester
Oct 17, 2011
10,489
172
63
Frankfooter said:
Exxon is being sued for fraud for lying about the effects of their products on climate change after their own internal investigations showed it was harmful.
That is a crime.
Click to expand...
Expressing an opinion that is different than the views held by some alarmists is not "lying." Opinions are not statements of fact.
 
F

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
94,256
23,711
113
Moviefan-2 said:
Expressing an opinion that is different than the views held by some alarmists is not "lying." Opinions are not statements of fact.
Click to expand...
As we know from your views on this subject.

However, when your own scientists find your product to be harmful and you bury that research and instead pay for lobbyists to spread what they know to be false, that is lying.
 
M

Moviefan-2

Court Jester
Oct 17, 2011
10,489
172
63
Frankfooter said:
However, when your own scientists find your product to be harmful and you bury that research and instead pay for lobbyists to spread what they know to be false, that is lying.
Click to expand...
That statement has nothing to do with anything being discussed in this thread.

This thread is about attempts to paint the expression of opinions that aren't sufficiently alarmist as somehow representing "fraud."

There is no evidence -- or even the suggestion of evidence -- of anything resembling a crime. This is simply an attack on opinions that some Democrats don't like.
 
F

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
94,256
23,711
113
Moviefan-2 said:
There is no evidence -- or even the suggestion of evidence -- of anything resembling a crime. This is simply an attack on opinions that some Democrats don't like.
Click to expand...
Stating this over and over won't make it true.
There is plenty of evidence.


http://insideclimatenews.org/news/0...senior-executives-engage-and-warming-forecast

Exxon knew of climate change in 1981, email says – but it funded deniers for 27 more years
Click to expand...
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/08/exxon-climate-change-1981-climate-denier-funding
 
F

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
80,010
8
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
Moviefan-2 said:
My statements related to the science were in response to your "knew to be false" nonsense. I pointed to the evidence to show that "knew to be false" was a false premise -- then and now.
Click to expand...
You have no idea. It is a question of what Exxon knew internally, which will be determined by examining their internal communications and comparing to their external communications.

If they say internally at their board meetings and such that fossil fuels likely cause global warming, then the next day that are saying publicly that they don't, then they are legally fucked.
 
M

Moviefan-2

Court Jester
Oct 17, 2011
10,489
172
63
fuji said:
If they say internally at their board meetings and such that fossil fuels likely cause global warming, then the next day that are saying publicly that they don't, then they are legally fucked.
Click to expand...
If I understand the baseless allegations correctly, the "fraud" is supposed to be that they didn't say anything to their board members.

Regardless, "likely" is an opinion and is speculation, not fact. They could not have known -- as a fact -- that there is a link between emissions and warming because that has never been established as a fact.

Indeed, the original draft of the IPCC's second report in 1995 said that a link hadn't been established connecting emissions to warming, in whole or in part.

Furthermore, the position ExxonMobil took publicly was that policy makers shouldn't make hasty decisions until more research could be done.

That was sound advice then. And given the enormous uncertainties that exist today, it remains sound advice.

Alarmists may disagree. But as I have said all along, having a different view than some alarmists is not evidence of "fraud."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Previous Thread Next Thread
Toronto Escorts
Top Bottom