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 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.