Exxon Knew: Lawsuit has Collapse

One of the ways in which propaganda is spread is to announce or launch a lawsuit.

For example: about 20 years ago, Moldive Islands announced that they were "considering" a lawsuit in November 2018

www.climatechangenews.com...

was such a law suit ever filed? Well no, but it sure startling isn't it. Causes some people to think that there must be something to this climate change thing.

Well the New York Attorney General thought to go one better. He actually filed a law suit against Exxon, claiming that they knew they were causing climate change and that they were defrauding investors.

Now that is something isn't it? The government must be really really really sure that climate change is happening and that CO2 is the cause. Those oil companies must be pure evil right.

Here is the story of the lawsuit:

climatelitigationwatch.org...

here is the court opinion:

climatelitigationwatch.org...

Essentially, the first link tells the story of how activist groups influenced an attorney general and the second link tells the story of a judge who doesn't think you should be able to buy the justice system for propaganda purposes.

the lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice (decision cannot be appealed) and it looks like the taxpayers of new york will be paying the legal costs for both sides.

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks


Follow the Money

a reply to: AttitudeProblem

I am not listening to a 20 minute video without a summary.

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: AttitudeProblem

I am not listening to a 20 minute video without a summary.

Even bullet points, would be nice...

I live in a very rural area... crappy satellite internet, with data limits.

Watching videos isn't always an option, for some of us...

Exxon has known about the effects its products have on Climate Change since the 1970’s.

From 2015:

Wednesday morning, journalists at InsideClimate News, a Web site that has won the Pulitzer Prize for its reporting on oil spills, published the first installment of a multi-part exposé that will be appearing over the next month. The documents they have compiled and the interviews they have conducted with retired employees and officials show that, as early as 1977, Exxon (now ExxonMobil, one of the world’s largest oil companies) knew that its main product would heat up the planet disastrously. This did not prevent the company from then spending decades helping to organize the campaigns of disinformation and denial that have slowed—perhaps fatally—the planet’s response to global warming.

Link

They’ve been working with the same people who developed the propaganda that told you smoking was harmless. That alone should be enough for a person to doubt their stance on climate change.

And will you look at that, the Judge who decided this case came under fire last year for his substantial investment in Exxon Mobil.

A New York judge agreed to sell his stock in ExxonMobil to resolve a potential conflict of interest flagged by the New York attorney general’s office after it filed its lawsuit alleging the oil giant misled investors over climate change risk.

Responding to the state’s request that he recuse himself from the case, Judge Barry R. Ostrager said in a hearing Wednesday in New York Supreme Court that he would sell his Exxon stock if New York withdraws its request and waives any claim of conflict of interest. Ostrager, 71, had held up to $250,000 in Exxon shares, according to the judge’s latest financial disclosure form filed with the Ethics Commission for the Unified Court System.

Link

Yep, nothing to see here folks.

a reply to: underwerks

oh my gosh....a man with money who invested in an oil company. Who would have thunk it???

The case started with a fair number of state AGs all on board and they all got off pretty quick, leaving the new york ag all on his lonesome with a losing case.

I guess they are all biased and had money invested in Exxon as well?

eidclimate.org...

Man, democrats and climate change supporters with go to any lengths to deny the truth when it its them in the face.

Do you really think that the NY AG would allow a biased judge?

Well anyway, say what you want, the case collapsed under the wieght of lack of evidence. The facts of the facts.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

I guess they are all biased and had money invested in Exxon as well?

Who knows. What is known is that the judge presiding over the case did. If you don’t think that’s shady, then your agenda is showing.

a reply to: underwerks

Bull crap.

Exxon is a single company out the entire world.

It should have NEVER went to trial.

a reply to: underwerks

Yeah, except the judge DID NOT have investments in Exxon. He sold the shares BEFORE he heard the case.

www.climateliabilitynews.org...

I guess now he is biased because he HEARD the name Exxon before the case?

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
Well anyway, say what you want, the case collapsed under the wieght of lack of evidence. The facts of the facts.

Lack of evidence of Exxon defrauding investors, not lack of evidence of other things like climate change. From the decision linked in the opening post, page 3:

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I never said anything about that.. what is your point?

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

The first thing that you must ask yourself;

Are the oil and fossil fuel companies legally responsible for (climate change?? for which the proof is questionable) or are we for burning fuel to keep ourselves warm and fed by burning fuel we need to survive.

Did the environmentalists applaud when trees were not used to heat our home but first oil and then gas?

The EXXONKNEW campaign started as a movement for hiding knowledge that CO2 increased global warming and ended with the NEW York AG charging them with failure to warn investors of the risks. Quite a come down.

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I never said anything about that.. what is your point?

You said this in the OP:

"Now that is something isn't it? The government must be really really really sure that climate change is happening and that CO2 is the cause. Those oil companies must be pure evil right."

My point is the case wasn't about whether climate change was happening or not, the case was about whether or not investors were being defrauded.

a reply to: Arbitrageur


That is what it came down to...investor fraud....but it certainly did not start that way. there is little doubt that it was started with the intention of propaganda to convince people that climate change was really happening.

www.reuters.com...

In a bid to try to force action on climate change, about 17 state attorneys general said in March they would jointly investigate whether Exxon executives misled the public by contradicting research from company scientists that spelled out the threats of global warming.

Investor fraud was the poor remnent of what the New York thought might be winnable. It wasn't