California to investigate whether Exxon Mobil lied about climate-change risks

California to investigate whether Exxon Mobil lied about climate-change risks

California Atty. Gen. Kamala D. Harris is investigating whether Exxon Mobil Corp. repeatedly lied to the public and its shareholders about the risk to its business from climate change — and whether such actions could amount to securities fraud and violations of environmental laws.

...

The move follows published reports, based on internal company documents, suggesting that during the 1980s and 1990s the company, then known as Exxon, used climate research as part of its planning and other business practices but simultaneously argued publicly that climate-change science was not clear cut.

Isn't that the same nonsense the cigarette companies tried to pull with their studies on the dangers of cigarettes? If so, I hope that Exxon Mobile gets busted here. Funding climate change denialism while internally accepting climate change is dishonest.

Lieu said he has sent letters to U.S. Atty. Gen. Loretta Lynch and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission calling for federal investigations of securities fraud and violations of racketeering, consumer protection, truth in advertising, public health, shareholder protection or other laws.

Maybe if we can start cracking down on the source of the money for climate denialism, we can finally wrap this tedious discussion up about if the science is real or not and move on to actually trying to fix the problem. I mean once the cigarette companies were exposed for covering up the dangers of cigarettes, the debate on if they were dangerous or not ended. So now we just need to expose the corruption here with climate denialism. Once people stop getting fed propaganda that climate science isn't real, they should stop believing it. It's not like the parallels between climate denialism and cigarette denialism haven't been pointed out already or anything. Merchants of Doubt

a reply to: Krazysh0t

In the 70's and 80's they were screaming "ICE AGE" then in the 90's we were going to burn with all kinds of computer models that didn't come to pass the BS test.

Yeah, climate science predictions have not turned out to be very accurate. I think the magic 8 ball has a similar accuracy rating.

a reply to: infolurker

Actually, they've been very accurate and you are wrong, but in any case, way to ignore talking about the thread content and instead interject your denialism viewpoint.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yeah,

They stopped paying their protection money to the extortionists. (Note, this was back in October / November)

Clinton Calls for Exxon Probe After Company Cuts Off Foundation Funding
freebeacon.com...

Hillary Clinton is calling for a federal investigation of ExxonMobil’s climate change activities just months after the company neglected to renew its sponsorship of the Clinton Global Initiative annual meeting.

ExxonMobil, which is being accused by global warming activists of misleading the public about climate change, has given between $ 1 million and $5 million to the Clinton Foundation and sponsored the CGI annual meeting in 2014. But this year, the oil giant was one of six major corporations that stopped sponsoring the event, according to USA Today.

Clinton said last week that the Department of Justice should investigate ExxonMobil for allegedly withholding data related to climate change, saying that there is “a lot of evidence they misled people.”

But despite Clinton’s comments, the Democratic presidential frontrunner has seemed willing to work with the oil giant until very recently, the International Business Times reports. And there is no indication that she’s planning to cut her financial ties with the company:

The Clinton Foundation has accepted at least $1 million from ExxonMobil, despite the company’s history of financing challenges to climate science. And Clinton’s State Department touted ExxonMobil as an example of how America should look at Iraq as “a business opportunity.” […]

Though ExxonMobil has stopped sponsoring the Clinton Foundation, ties between the company and the Clintons remain. Clinton’s campaign listed an ExxonMobil lobbyist as one of its top fundraisers, and the company’s employees have donated $8,900 to her 2016 campaign, according to Federal Election Commission records. Tony Podesta, the brother of Clinton’s campaign chair, has lobbied for Golden Pass Products LLC, a company part-owned by ExxonMobil. Podesta has raised$130,000 for her campaign.

The Clinton Foundation featured two ExxonMobil board members at its conference this year. The foundation has also accepted donations from other major oil firms that have a financial interest in fighting climate change legislation. Data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics shows that her presidential campaign has accepted more than $159,000 from donors in the oil and gas industry, making her one of the top five recipients of the industry’s campaign money.

See, this can all go away if they pay up.




The Clinton Foundation is seeing its donations rise during Clinton’s presidential campaign. Potential donors should know that while giving to the Foundation could help them, any future pauses in giving could also hurt them…with a vengeance.

a reply to: infolurker

This thread has nothing to do with Clinton though. California is pursuing this case. So regardless of Clinton's motives, at least one other source finds something credible to pursue judicially against Exxon Mobile.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Or it could be just another extortion racket

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Maybe, but the onus is on you to produce the evidence of that being true. Just saying it is so because you want to believe it doesn't make it so.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Actually - just look at what happened to the extortion money from the tobacco settlement. Lawyers finding it perfectly acceptable to charge over $25,000 per hour. People going to jail. Changing the law and then changing it right back again. Where the tobacco money is gone and how much money is now owed by the taxpayers.

Everyone is looking for the "new tobacco" and the next big payout.

This is hardly surprising. So Exxon funded research into a topic that affected their business. Are you suggesting in any way that Exxon should have just thrown their hands in the air and refused to sell any more fossil fuel??

Wonder how that would have gone over?

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Well lying about scientific findings to protect your profits tends to be something people frown over. I mean I know you don't have a problem with it, but the rest of America generally does. Something about false advertising and all that (which you'll notice is one of the complaints being leveled against Exxon Mobile).

a reply to: Krazysh0t

And which scientific finding did they lie about?

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

We don't know yet, the investigation is still under way. This is all the article eluded to on the matter:

The move follows published reports, based on internal company documents, suggesting that during the 1980s and 1990s the company, then known as Exxon, used climate research as part of its planning and other business practices but simultaneously argued publicly that climate-change science was not clear cut.

Those documents were cited in stories by reporters for Columbia University Energy and Environmental Reporting Fellowship, published in partnership with the Los Angeles Times. The nonprofit InsideClimate News also published several stories based on the documents.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Using climate research and arguing against climate change are not the same thing.

a reply to: Edumakated

I didn't say they were... Exxon Mobile is being accused of the exact same things that the cigarette companies were accused of that warranted the HUGE lawsuits against them for trying to hide the links between cigarettes and cancer.

The point is though, that there is no credible argument against climate change. It is all rhetoric, hyperbole, and propaganda designed to be repeated by the gullible under the premise of "questioning things". This will be confirmed once Exxon Mobile is exposed for having confirmed Climate Change's authenticity then working to hide that fact.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Edumakated

I didn't say they were... Exxon Mobile is being accused of the exact same things that the cigarette companies were accused of that warranted the HUGE lawsuits against them for trying to hide the links between cigarettes and cancer.

The point is though, that there is no credible argument against climate change. It is all rhetoric, hyperbole, and propaganda designed to be repeated by the gullible under the premise of "questioning things". This will be confirmed once Exxon Mobile is exposed for having confirmed Climate Change's authenticity then working to hide that fact.

There is no credible argument against climate change? Seriously?

a reply to: Edumakated

Yes, seriously. That's why the only people who doubt it are American conservatives. Meanwhile the rest of the world laughs at the notion that it is fake.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Edumakated

Yes, seriously. That's why the only people who doubt it are American conservatives. Meanwhile the rest of the world laughs at the notion that it is fake.

Or maybe conservatives are the only ones smart enough to see the Emperor has no clothes....

a reply to: Edumakated

Yeah that's great reasoning, "I'm not the one who is crazy, everyone else is!" Yeah. No. You are just deluding yourself.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Edumakated

Yeah that's great reasoning, "I'm not the one who is crazy, everyone else is!" Yeah. No. You are just deluding yourself.

And your position is no matter what data or logic disproves your ideology, I am just going to dismiss it outright.

a reply to: Edumakated

Data disproving my ideology? Where is that? That has yet to ever be presented. It's always, "al gore! Carbon credits! climategate!" and other soundbites that have nothing to do with data analysis. Then on the rare occasion when data IS brought up, the studies used are cherry picked and ignore key parts of them that conflict with what the people are trying to say.

I'm sorry, you are confusing climate denialism with actually being scientifically skeptical. They are two different things.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I've been on ATS a long time now...posting about it (like yourself, and many others here) for ages:

Major Global Warming Denial Movement Linked Directly to ExxonMobil: PROOF

It's the most obvious and easy to prove "conspiracy" out there. The motives, the papertrails, the proof are everywhere. Yet amazing how many supposed conspiracy theorists choose to remain willfully ignorant of the topic because they like to "question everything" but their own beliefs and ideological biases. At least some people who can actually make a difference are finally starting to clue in though.

Ten years from now the truth behind this sham will be just as ubiquitous as the 80s tobacco campaign, and all the phonies will pretend they knew it all along.

Merchants of Doubt is definitely a GREAT book that blows the whole charade wide open. You can find the movie online for free at places like this:

Link