It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: AttitudeProblem
I am not listening to a 20 minute video without a summary.
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.
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.
I guess they are all biased and had money invested in Exxon as well?
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:
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.
You said this in the OP:
originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: Arbitrageur
I never said anything about that.. what is your point?
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.