SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:
Charges that Exxon Mobil misled investors on the financial risks of climate change will be heard in court this month after a New York judge gave the green light for a trial.
[...] Barry Ostrager, a New York judge, rejected motions on Wednesday night and set a trial to begin next Tuesday.
The lawsuit alleges that Exxon defrauded investors by claiming to fully account for the financial impact of future climate change mitigation policies, when it was not actually doing so.
[...] "As a result of Exxon's fraud, the company was exposed to far greater risk from climate change regulations than investors were led to believe," according to the complaint, which said the scheme enabled Exxon to avoid large asset write-downs that would have represented billions of dollars in lost revenue.
The complaint points the finger at the highest levels of Exxon, including former chief executive and US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who "knew for years that the company's representations... were misleading," the complaint said.
An Exxon spokesman said the New York case against it "is misleading and deliberately misrepresents" the company's practices for assessing climate policies.
"The New York Attorney General's allegations are false," the spokesman said.
[...] In August 2018, the US Securities and Exchange Commission ended an investigation into Exxon's decision not to write down assets because of future climate change regulations, taking no action against the company.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 21 2019, @11:03PM (11 children)
Maybe because every occurrence now gets a "climate change" angle since She Lost? Maybe because the level of discourse is religious, and some proponents are apparently driven by obtaining more publicity and grant money?
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Tuesday October 22 2019, @01:30AM (10 children)
That's particularly stupid conspiracy theory crap. The idea that scientists could be wrong or lying so uniformly on that massive a scale is ridiculous. If they were wrong, surely some scientists would conclude that the Earth is actually cooling, and about to enter another Ice Age. Or if they're all lying, could they all agree on the same big lie? No scientists at all would be willing to break ranks? Really? And for what? Risk their reputations and careers for the pathetic dribblings of grant money devoted to general science, begrudged by ignoramuses who can't ever satisfy their suspicions that it might all be fake? Absurd! Besides, military and defense monies are far greater and more readily obtained.
But we don't need to rely on scientists. Just look, and call a spade a spade, damn it. In recent years, temperature records have been broken far more often at the high end than the low end. CO2 in the atmosphere is now above 400 ppm. It has fluctuated between 180 ppm and 300 ppm for millions of years, and this jump above 400ppm is unprecedented in its speed. The arctic sea ice has shrunk dramatically. Glaciers all across the world are in retreat.
As for "religious" level of discourse, no. Such a suggestion merely shows the suggester does not get science. Science is not religion. The key difference is that religions take things on faith. Science takes nothing on faith, not even objective reality.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 22 2019, @01:45AM (5 children)
"Science is not religion. The key difference is that religions take things on faith. Science takes nothing on faith, not even objective reality." - But you don't consume science. You consume what the MSM tells you "the science says". Yes, it was the WARMEST JULY EVAH! in Northern Minnesota or wherever, but the news quashes any limiting qualifying statements the scientists have put on their work. A local long-term maximum tells you next to nothing about predicting what the rest of the world is going to be like.
Scientists have to eat too. If they need to ask muggles for money, they'll bias their proposals to the audience, such that more money is liable to flow.
Glaciers melting has been an issue for over a hundred years now, but don't forget we've just come out of the Little Ice Age 150 years ago.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 22 2019, @01:55AM (4 children)
Wtf? Glaciers melted at a rate in the last 100 years about 1/3 slower than the long term average.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 22 2019, @02:01AM (3 children)
Citation needed.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 22 2019, @02:09AM (2 children)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise [wikipedia.org]
So that is 62.5 cm/century on average vs 16 - 30 cm/century the last 100 years. The average is 2-3.9 times higher.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 22 2019, @03:57AM (1 child)
Supposing you are the GP, the request was for citation on change in glacier melt rates you were asserting. Not sea level rise.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 22 2019, @04:01AM
Probably a waste of time to deal with such an idiotic post, but here are the next few words included in the same quote:
Good luck to you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 22 2019, @03:06AM (2 children)
1300 AD: The idea that monks and priests could be wrong or lying so uniformly on that massive a scale is ridiculous.
That is the default state of things, if it is surprising to you that means you are ignorant of history.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Tuesday October 22 2019, @04:03AM (1 child)
False equivalence. Monks and priests are practitioners of religion, which takes things on faith, as I already stated. They made up stuff about all kinds of things which they had no idea about. In many cases, they had to, to maintain the appearance of having all the Answers. And they were often at odds with one another. Why else does Christianity have so many sects?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 22 2019, @11:53AM
It is exactly the same. It is a bunch of self proclaimed experts patting themselves on the back who have become part of the political establishment.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 22 2019, @06:52PM
That's particularly stupid conspiracy theory crap. The idea that politicians could be wrong or lying so uniformly on that massive a scale is ridiculous. If they were wrong, surely some voters would conclude that the two party system is actually destroying our civilization and we are about to enter another totalitarian state. Or if they're all lying, could they all agree on the same big lie? No politicians or voters at all would be willing to break ranks? Really?