# ExxonMobil RICO case a slam dunk?



## woodgeek (Nov 5, 2015)

Carbon bubble issue gathers steam?

Quote from:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2015/11/a-rico-exxon-lawsuit-slam-dunk-to-win.html

Your background. Bernie Sanders and Sheldon Whitehouse in the Senate, and Ted Lieu and Mark DeSaulnier in the House, have called on the Department of Justice to investigate ExxonMobil for possibly perpetrating fraud, and if warranted, launch a RICO investigation of the company (and other fossil fuel companies) similar to the tobacco industry lawsuit it launched, and won, more than a decade ago. In addition, four House members including Ted Lieu have also called on the SEC to investigate Exxon for fraud, perhaps under the Sarbanes-Oxley law.

From Sen. Sanders' letter (quoted here):
"I am writing regarding a potential instance of corporate fraud - behavior that may qualify as a violation of federal law." I've written about this a number of times, as have others, notably Bill McKibben. Here I want to look at what a set of investigations might mean. My source is this piece from Seeking Alpha, an investor-oriented site. At the end, I've appended arequest for our Democratic candidates for president in the form of a speech I'd like one of them to give.

*A "Slam Dunk" to Win*

The first point from my headline is this: So many damaging Exxon documents have already been made public, that according to Seeking Alpha, a Department of Justice lawsuit would be a "slam dunk" to win. Duane Bair at Seeking Alpha:
On October 20, 2015, Vermont Senator Bernard Sanders sent a letter to Attorney General Loretta Lynch asking the Department of Justice to investigate allegations made public through an in-depth expose by _InsideClimate News_. The Pulitzer Prize winning group is dedicated to providing objective facts regarding the debate around energy and climate change. The reporters spoke with hundreds of former Exxon scientists and executives, combed through thousands of pages of scientific studies and thousands of in-house memos. Their findings are astonishing. [...]Here Bair details why those findings are "astonishing." I urge you to click through if you want a fast summary of the extend of the wrong done by Exxon executives, and how far back that wrong-doing goes.


----------



## Snagdaddy (Nov 5, 2015)

"The Sarbanes-Oxley law makes corporate executives personally and criminally liable for fraudulent statements on annual and quarterly reports that go out under their signature. The value of corporate assets — including, in the case of the carbon industry, its oil, gas and coal reserves — is part of every annual statement. If a corporation knows, for example, that climate change will inevitably "strand" (render valueless) a large percentages of those assets, and yet misdeclares and knowingly overvalues those assets ... well, that sounds like investor fraud to me."


The above argument, quoted from the digbysblog link above, is central to the issue at hand.  The argument is a fallacy, based upon the nebulous idea of "climate change" and its promoters ever present argument that the science is settled...

This trumped-up issue, probably hatched, nurtured or encouraged by one of the think-tanks, is likely diversionary and/or designed to develop a "climate change" friendly outcome desired by big oil itself, including Exxon and as well as Shell and other members of big oil.  Notably, "Big Oil" (Exxon, Shell, Etc.) are Brookings Institute members http://www.brookings.edu/ and CFR members http://www.cfr.org/ and have taken on active roles in making and enforcing global policy, including "climate change" policy.

This witch hunt, if completed, will probably serve to act upon corporate executives within Exxon that didn't want to play along with the "climate change" game, while concurrently cementing into place firmer "climate change" policy on an industry wide basis.


----------



## jharkin (Nov 5, 2015)

Snagdaddy said:


> its promoters ever present argument that the science is settled...



Otherwise known as 99.9% of climate scientists.   


But good to know its all a hoax.  thank goodness because otherwise the 75F days we have been having in November would be 85F days and Id need to put the air conditioners back in!


----------



## BrotherBart (Nov 5, 2015)

Funny that Bernie cites an article from Seeking Alpha. Seeking Alpha published an article Monday titled "The RICO Case Against Exxon Is Toothless".

*Summary*
Allegations that Exxon committed fraud regarding climate change communications are groundless.

There isn't any evidence that the company misrepresented the science, whether willingly or not.

While the stock might be struck temporarily by a headline or rumor, a prosecution and its associated financial cost are extremely unlikely.


----------



## woodgeek (Nov 5, 2015)

I suppose I will think the case has more merit when the Atty Genl decides to proceed. Or not.

Snagdaddy: thank you for my daily dose of twisted conspiracy porn.


----------



## Snagdaddy (Nov 5, 2015)

Ice age on the way....

http://www.express.co.uk/news/scien...cade-long-ice-age-predicted-as-sun-hibernates

Antarctica ice growing...

http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/617144/Antarctica-not-shrinking-growing-ice-caps-melting

Turns out that big bright star in the sky has more to do with warming and cooling the earth than any of our gasses.

The science settled?   Check out the following article from zerohedge that describes who is to gain from the global warming and climate change hoax:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-...cks-down-exxon-over-climate-crimes-global-war


----------



## woodgeek (Nov 6, 2015)

Looks like the New York AG is trying to keep busy.

"HOUSTON — The opening of an investigation of Exxon Mobil by the New York attorney general’s office into the company’s record on climate change may well spur legal inquiries into other oil companies, according to legal and climate experts, although successful prosecutions are far from assured."

NYT article: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/07/s...mobil-as-focus-of-climate-investigations.html

and: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/06/s...tion-in-new-york-over-climate-statements.html

Looks like they will subpoenaing ALEC.  I'm sure their emails contain nothing embarrassing re AGW.  ClimateGate in reverse, on steroids?  Not mentioned: Heartland Institute.

I guess I see this more as a cultural turning point than a legal one.  The current younger generation has little clue re the extent of lying and disinformation that prevailed for the last 30 years, having been raised with greenwashed fossil energy cos.  If all this does is air the oil cos extensive dirty laundry and launch a thousand facebook memes it might be of far greater value than a few $B in fines.

For example, smoking rates really took a dive not when the science of smoking causing cancer was well established, but more so after the legal challenges, where it became clear that the industry had been playing smokers for fools for 30 years.  Hard to think you're cool for smoking when you're a tool.

@Snagdaddy: Re Tyler Durden, the first rule of AGW fight club is that you don't talk about AGW fight club!


----------



## jharkin (Nov 6, 2015)

Zerohedge?

For real?


Thats a tin hat conspiracy website.

Turn off Fox news, Zerohedge and drudge  for a minute and read some other sources. The US republican party appears to be the only major group around the globe that thinks its a hoax.  The opinion in the scientific community and public opinion across most of hte globe overwhelmingly  supports the science.

Let me guess, do you believe in _abiotic oil _too?


If you are looking for who is to gain you had it right in the OP - the executives of Exxon and other oil majors will make more money on Monday than most climate scientists will see in their entire lifetime.  Its not that hard to understand...


----------



## Snagdaddy (Nov 6, 2015)

jharkin said:


> If you are looking for who is to gain you had it right in the OP - the executives of Exxon and other oil majors will make more money on Monday than most climate scientists will see in their entire lifetime. Its not that hard to understand...



The little money the climate scientists get for their work (directly or indirectly from the government)  evaporates the moment they find the wrong findings.  They are a few missteps away from becoming walmart employees.  This is why modern science is contaminated. 



jharkin said:


> Turn off Fox news, Zerohedge and drudge for a minute and read some other sources



Suggest some other sources to read.  I have visited CNN, MSNBC, PBS, and probably most of the major online  newspapers.  Foxnews is in this same category.  The problem is that the news from these sites seems to be coming from the same location....

By the way, the comment section on the Zerohedge site is a must read.

a "conspiracy cookie"  to keep "woodgeek" happy:

http://www.infowars.com/this-is-why-you-should-be-skeptical-of-government-funded-science/


----------



## Jake86 (Nov 6, 2015)

Not a scientist, not sure what this means regarding the climate change controversy, but read there is significant warming of the poles on Mars.  Is this man made global warming? Who's to blame?  I want to know!


----------



## Jake86 (Nov 6, 2015)

I'll give you my stove, when they pry it from my cold, dead, burnt hands!


----------



## jharkin (Nov 6, 2015)

What was I thinking! Of course it's a conspiracy expertly orchestrated by millions of scientists and hundreds of governments worldwide for decades.

They did such a great job faking satellite photos of referring glaciers, must be done in the same lab where they faked the moon landings.

Thanks for the education, I'm out.


----------



## TradEddie (Nov 13, 2015)

Snagdaddy said:


> The little money the climate scientists get for their work (directly or indirectly from the government) evaporates the moment they find the wrong findings



Select the most famous scientists in history, and ask why are they famous?
Aristotle, Galileo, Newton, Einstein.

None of those became famous for repeating the work or proving the hypotheses of others, they are famous for challenging the status quo in scientific opinion and proving existing science was wrong.

For any scientist seeking to get rich or famous, proving that AGW is a hoax or a mistake would be the greatest achievement of their lives. A Nobel prize for certain, and job offers from every major university in the world. To suggest that 99.9% the world's climate scientists are falsifying evidence to maintain their paltry salaries is laughable.

TE


----------



## Snagdaddy (Nov 14, 2015)

According to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the science has been settled on climate change for a long time now.  

http://www.aaas.org/news/aaas-reaffirms-statements-climate-change-and-integrity





TradEddie said:


> To suggest that 99.9% the world's climate scientists are falsifying evidence to maintain their paltry salaries is laughable.



I didn't claim what you said I claimed.  Maybe re-read my posts.  

When melting glaciers are caused by volcanic activity in a local area, of course warming is happening but its causes (underwater volcano) are hidden or not mentioned while only the warming is studied.  This is just one example how science today is compartmentalized to achieve an overall goal.   "Finding the wrong findings" would be to actually factor in the volcano or the sun into the data.  This won't happen because the sun and volcanoes  "don't exist under the current model".  


The (big) oil companies support the idea of man-made climate change as an issue driving internal policy.  This beggars belief by some but the evidence of it is very plain.


----------



## woodgeek (Nov 15, 2015)

Snagdaddy said:


> The (big) oil companies support the idea of man-made climate change as an issue driving internal policy.  This beggars belief by some but the evidence of it is very plain.



More or less.  ExxonMobil has applied a carbon tax to their long term projected earnings for many years now.  This did cause a stir among the enviros back when they started.  More recently, a number of other oil majors (mostly UK and EU based) signed a letter asking world leaders to develop a carbon trading regime.  To a naive environmentalist, these developments would appear to be cause for cheer, or evidence of 'progress'.

https://www.hearth.com/talk/threads/oil-majors-call-for-carbon-pricing.144152/

I am a bit more cynical about the motives of these companies.

Based on recent discussions of the Carbon Bubble, and now the RICO case, it is a bit clearer what they are up to.

While the oil majors have been discussing a future carbon trading regime as part of their financials, I think this is a smoke screen.  Rather than confirm or deny the reality of climate change explicitly, or acknowledge the potential for AGW to affect their long term future earnings or to strand their assets, they simply 'factor it in' with a (rather low) carbon price, while maintaining perpetually growing future revenue projections.  Rather than discuss the deeper issues regarding the future of their business (i.e. many of their assets have no value, and their future revenue is likely to be revised downward) they move the dialog to esoteric questions of 'how much would the price of carbon be?' and reminding everyone that 'oil cannot be replaced' in the global economy.

The heart of the RICO case is that while it is perfectly legal for a corporation to lie to the american people, it is not legal for them to lie to their own shareholders.  Kinda like getting a gangster for not paying his taxes.  ExxonMobil recently made a statement to its shareholders (discussed here in the green room) re the carbon bubble, and asserting that there was no risk to them.  They cited their own bountiful future revenue projections in the face of competition, and pointed out that their projections were conservative relative to that of the independent EIA (which is required by its charter to make projections that discount future renewable energy incentives).  "No reason to worry shareholders...we will be selling more oil forever."

https://www.hearth.com/talk/threads/to-strand-or-not-to-strand-that-is-the-question-for-xom.143389/

IOW, a crock of chit.

So, when the carbon bubble comes to fruition, there will be the questions of what did ExxonMobil know, and when did they know it?

Compared to a movement whose result will be to leave a lot of oil in the ground (esp North American oil), carbon pricing looks like kiddie pool. Taxes are unpopular, and their rates can be manipulated by bought politicians.  If our best plan for reducing CO2 emissions were a carbon tax, the majors know they could make it an albatross around the neck of the party that started it, for decades to come, while at the same time they could reduce its cost to the level that would allow business as usual, again for decades to come.

Basically, the oil majors want a carbon tax because what is coming down the pipe will be much worse for them.  IMO, the Saudis have seen the handwriting on the wall (not all of the oil in the ground will be pumped and sold), and are undertaking their current operation (with $40 oil prices as the result) so that they can get a bigger slice of the finite sized pie that remains.  The majors understand this too, are more or less powerless to change the situation, and are not telling their shareholders.


----------



## woodgeek (Jan 20, 2016)

In other news... California is in on the investigation of Exxon defrauding its shareholders.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/21/science/california-said-to-target-exxon-in-climate-inquiry.html

and WTI oil appears to be down to $26 and change.


----------



## BrotherBart (Jan 20, 2016)

California is tinkling up a rope.


----------



## woodgeek (Jan 20, 2016)

While most shareholders are still of the opinion that Exxon and the other majors will be allowed to develop all their stated reserves, the case will be buried on page 17.
If/when the 'leave it in the ground' movement gets some traction with the younger generation, maybe some shareholders will start asking why they weren't warned of the risk...until then, I am inclined to agree with BB.
That said, California did more or less singlehandedly give us the alternative to oil...the EV.


----------



## dougstove (Jan 20, 2016)

> ...  IMO, the Saudis have seen the handwriting on the wall (not all of the oil in the ground will be pumped and sold), and are undertaking their current operation (with $40 oil prices as the result) so that they can get a bigger slice of the finite sized pie that remains.  The majors understand this too, are more or less powerless to change the situation, and are not telling their shareholders.



I wonder whether the Saudi royal family is seeking to cash out before the various extremists they have fostered come home to roost.

To quote one of their princes, the stone age did not end because we ran out of stones.


----------



## begreen (Jan 21, 2016)

Saudi's have a lot of entitlements but it is an oppressive state. The Saudi state is trying to avoid another Arab spring, but their coffers are running low while the population grows. Many things are free there, like healthcare and education. Now budgets are shrinking and they are considering taxes for the first time. There is also a huge wealth disparity. Grumbling at the street level is the result. Mounting sales of Iranian oil are not going to help the Saudi situation at all. 
http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/collapse-saudi-arabia-inevitable-1895380679


----------



## woodgeek (Jan 21, 2016)

I'm no fan of the Saudi's but the article argues they are doomed based on the export land model....not super reliable.

They are under strain, but they have no sovereign debt and are sitting on the cheapest petro on the planet...not a bad position in a (hypothetical) future of declining demand.


----------



## blades (Jan 22, 2016)

Carbon tax - scam- a way to make money from nothing by creating something from nothing and then charging for it.  Sorry I do not buy into the carbon credit trading scams. Ultimately all it will do is drive the cost of fuel of any type higher and  there by burying the common man even further down in the mud while all the while an elite few are laughing at the duplicity of the populace. Hangs right in there with Global warming or in the fifties global freezing ( yes the talking heads were pushing that scam back then)  Course I am kind on the over the hill side- mean, grouchy, crotchety, don't believe much unless the science behind it is perfect and I can still add, subtract, divide and multiply with out a machine. Guess I fell out of one too many trees, fell of my bike sans protective equipment and one too many times Huh?


----------



## begreen (Jan 22, 2016)

We can look at an example to see how a carbon tax might work by looking at British Columbia. So far they seem happy with what it is accomplishing. It's resulting in reduced fuel consumption AND reduced income tax and some of the lowest corporate tax rates in Canada. The key is to make it revenue neutral. If big problems are not dealt with in a rational way they will fester to the point of crisis. 

http://www.economist.com/blogs/americasview/2014/07/british-columbias-carbon-tax


----------



## blades (Jan 22, 2016)

I agree with you Begreen, but I also have a very keen sense of what will take place DC wise, your last two sentences sum it up.  All DC can see  $$$$$ and you know as well as I it will not be revenue neutral. Heck they were talking trading carbon credits ( and look who is in theory will make up the board of directors of the only authorized trading point) So it becomes a political football, all about money in someones pocket, not about environmental issues at any level.  So that is the glitch  I object to and call  the whole  thing like I do - scam.  The article referenced takes a bit of a pie eyed view gushing on the front side and very weak on the back side imop. With the current administrations war on a particular segment of resources and are own lovely out of control EPA,  there in makes a recipe for crisis. Just a minute now while I go crawl under my rock (Granite- maybe the radon is getting me ?)


----------



## dougstove (Jan 22, 2016)

Carbon tax: government revenue (for roads, aircraft carriers, medicare, whatever) taken on the base of carbon energy consumption, incentivizing labour and capital to cut energy (and pollution)>

Income tax: government revenue (ditto above) taken on income, incentivizing energy and capital to cut labour.

Anybody who works and pays income tax should favour a carbon tax over an income tax.

Carbon credit trading is a different story, subject to bankster profiteering.


----------



## woodgeek (Jan 23, 2016)

If I didn't believe in global warming, then I too would be skeptical of carbon taxes (which do not exist in the US, nor are any being discussed) and the Clean Power Plan (CPP).


----------



## woodgeek (Jan 27, 2016)

NY AG says its the SECs job to police carbon bubble disclosures....

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/b...x-enforcement-of-climate-risk-disclosure.html



> In 2010, the S.E.C. told companies how it expected them to address the risks posed by climate change in their regular securities filings.
> 
> Wall Street’s top regulator was not issuing a new rule. Rather, this was “interpretive guidance” on existing disclosure requirements. The S.E.C. chairwoman at the time, Mary Schapiro, noted then that the S.E.C. was “not opining on whether the world’s climate is changing, at what pace it might be changing, or due to what causes,” but asking companies to take stock of the risks to their businesses. Among the factors companies should address, the S.E.C. said, were legislation and regulation related to climate change, international treaties on the issue, and the physical impacts of climate change, like flood or drought.
> 
> ...


----------



## woodgeek (Mar 27, 2016)

....and the SEC has ruled:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-exxon-mobil-shareholders-exclusive-idUSKCN0WP2TG

basically, they say that previous reports by XOM to shareholders re climate change risks (to the XOM business model) were *not* adequate.


----------



## Doug MacIVER (May 14, 2016)

haven't really been following this very closely,but this looked interesting. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05...kla-in-foia-lawsuit-emails-to-be-made-public/


----------



## woodgeek (May 14, 2016)

Doug MacIVER said:


> haven't really been following this very closely,but this looked interesting. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05...kla-in-foia-lawsuit-emails-to-be-made-public/



Doesn't seem too surprising.

1) A couple dozen interested, informed taxpayers get together to write a public, signed letter to their government, which they feel is in the public interest.

2) A member of congress gets his pet think tank to subpoena the letter writers' employer with a FOIA claim (but with the implied threat of a congressional subpoena later if they don't comply) for the letter writers' email to each other.

3) Threatened by the think tank (and their backing congressperson), the employers cave, the emails are posted in a right-wing blog, and the emails consist of a few nerds circulating emails about....what should be in the letter and who should be brought in to sign it.  Duh.

4) Said congressman uses his 'oversight authority' to look into the lead letter writers' (publicly available) salary and govt grant funding information....his and his family's financial records for the last two decades are forwarded to another right-wing blog, and his perpetual harassment is off to the races.

Who is the witch, and who is the witchhunter?

I look forward to the day that every little old lady that writes a letter to the newspaper receives a subpeona from the US congress the next day for all her personal communications from the previous 90 days, which is then posted on a winger website where it receives 302 comments.

Democracy in action.

More specifically, did you notice that the letter was written AFTER the RICO case had already been called for by a sitting US senator?  Or that the article failed to disclose that the RICO case has subsequently been filed by multiple state attornies general AND endorsed by the SEC regulatory body responsible?  Nope...its all just these hapless scientist 'ring-leaders' writing a letter....so political!


----------



## woodgeek (May 14, 2016)

Another winger site's take with more background:
http://dailysignal.com/2015/10/26/l...s-obama-to-prosecute-climate-change-skeptics/

Personally, I find the witchhunt case against the 'ringleader' Shukla absurd.  They accuse him of illegally 'moonlighting'...getting paid by his university and an outside institute....but all professors are allowed to work outside, typically up to 20% of their hours.  Believe it or not, many professors could earn more money outside academia....this moonlighting as consultants, expert witnesses, allows the university to pay star professors less, and keeps tuition costs down.

They accuse him of 'double dipping'....being paid by the NSF both through the institute and the university....both those would be different (competitive BTW) grants...so it is not clear how that would be a problem....he has to fulfill the terms of both contracts separately, and then gets paid by both contracts.  Maybe they mean the moonlighting again, its not clear.

The writers of the article do not understand how academic research and professorships work.  They claim he sent emails from his work computer while he was 'on the clock'....there is no clock for a salaried professor...he is expected to complete the teaching, research and service requirements of his university, on whatever schedule he determines.

Moreover, 'academic freedom' insists that his intellectual activities at the university are entirely up to him.

Some more background on Lamar Smith, holding the purse strings for most US govt funded scientific research since 2012 :


----------



## woodgeek (May 25, 2016)

*Nice NYTimes article today:  *

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/24/s...gainst-exxon-has-roots-in-a-2012-meeting.html

*The energy companies are trying to 'flip the script'....I'm not a conspiracy....you are!*
_
The activists who have painted a bright target on the back of Exxon Mobil have “colluded to push politically motivated investigations of climate dissent,” and conducted a “real-life RICO-type conspiracy.”

So say defenders of the energy company, who in recent weeks have tried to flip the script on the activists whose work helped set the stage for the current investigations of possible conflicts between Exxon Mobil’s public and private statements on climate change.
_
*They do mention the merits:*
_
The Department of Justice won a victory against the industry in a case relying largely on the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, also known as RICO — despite the tobacco companies’ insistence that its public statements were protected under the First Amendment. Fraud, the judge noted, is not protected by the Constitution.

The 2012 report stated, “Similar documents may well exist in the vaults of the fossil fuel industry and their trade associations and front groups, and there are many possible approaches to unearthing them.”

It also said, “State attorneys general can also subpoena documents, raising the possibility that a single sympathetic state attorney general might have substantial success in bringing key internal documents to light.”

Since November, several attorneys general, beginning with Eric T. Schneiderman in New York, have sent extensive subpoenas to Exxon Mobil seeking internal documents related to climate change. The state attorneys general have said that while they consult widely in preparing an inquiry, the decision to proceed is based on the merits of the case alone.
_
*And our old friend Lamar is incensed that someone would abuse their subpoena power! ROFL! *
_
Lamar Smith, a Republican from Texas who is chairman of the House Science Committee, has sent a letter to Mr. Schneiderman, citing the collaboration and resulting subpoenas as possible “abuse of prosecutorial discretion.”
_
*You can 't make this stuff up.*


----------



## woodgeek (May 25, 2016)

Fascinating:  http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/20/science/exxon-mobil-climate-change-global-warming.html





Lamar is basically using his Fed subpoena powers to intimidate several State AGs, including NY-AG Eric Schneiderman:

_Eric Soufer, a spokesman for Mr. Schneiderman, said, “It is remarkable that a do-nothing Congress that has refused to take any action on climate change is now attempting to disrupt this important investigation into potential corporate malfeasance.” The office did not take part in the 2012 meeting, he said. He added, “speaking with outside experts is a routine part of the investigative process, and we make decisions based on the merits, period.”

He also noted that Mr. Smith, the chairman of the House Science Committee, is in the midst of a contentious investigation of federal climate scientists and has demanded private correspondence as part of the inquiry.

“The *irony* of this letter is breathtaking,” Mr. Soufer said. “Its signatories appear to be part of a multipronged media campaign funded by the fossil fuel industry aimed at suppressing the free exchange of ideas among scientists, academics and responsible law enforcement.”
_
Just in case you were wondering the extent to which our Fed authorities were bought, sold and delivered by the Fossil Fuel Companies....I think its pretty clear now, no?


----------



## sportbikerider78 (May 25, 2016)

jharkin said:


> Otherwise known as 99.9% of climate scientists.
> 
> 
> But good to know its all a hoax.  thank goodness because otherwise the 75F days we have been having in November would be 85F days and Id need to put the air conditioners back in!



Sorry,,not true about the 99.9%.  Did you find that number on an Al Gore homepage?

I guess it would help the man caused climate change crowd a great deal, if there wasn't so much fraud associated with the data.  

There may be some man made climate change, but who can really say how much?  That is the biggest question.  If we regulate and drop our CO2 emissions 50% (if that is economically possible), how much impact will that actually have on the climate?  And how do we know that this (warming and cooling) is not natural temperature cycles?

Moreover..let's see some proof of how much wind, hydro, solar and electric cars have decreased the impact on fossil fuel consumption and the associated improvement that has made on the earth...however that is measured.  What about nuclear?  That is the biggest elephant in the room to me.  That outputs zero CO2.

Forgive me for not swallowing this man caused climate change theory hook line and sinker.  
First it was a global cooling ice age...when that didn't happen.....
Then global warming....when 10 years proved no warming.....
Global climate disruption....
Now climate change
Climate challenges???  I'm trying to keep up here....

There is no doubt that......
Climate does change over time.
The earth has warmed slightly over 100 years.  
Man does have an influence on the climate...not just emissions..but with farming, building cities, and consuming.  

There is no science that CO2 can change the climate except through the intermediate step of warming.

I agree with Bernie in that we should not be giving away hundreds of millions of taxpayer money to big oil corporations. That is criminal. What good does sueing them and then giving them money do? 
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...sidising-worlds-biggest-fossil-fuel-companies


----------



## woodgeek (May 25, 2016)

sportbikerider78 said:


> Sorry,,not true about the 99.9%.  Did you find that number on an Al Gore homepage?



Al WHO now??    The enemy you seek is Bill McKibben.



sportbikerider78 said:


> I guess it would help the man caused climate change crowd a great deal, if there wasn't so much fraud associated with the data.
> 
> There may be some man made climate change, but who can really say how much?  That is the biggest question.  If we regulate and drop our CO2 emissions 50% (if that is economically possible), how much impact will that actually have on the climate?  And how do we know that this (warming and cooling) is not natural temperature cycles?
> 
> ...



Ironically, the witchhunt being led by your taxpayer paid US Rep. Smith was against a bunch of scientists who published a paper in Science that basically said the 'pause' you cite was a myth (which was peer reviewed and had ALL of the data and methodology published online as standard operating procedure, so anyone can replicate the analysis an findings).  Didn't happen.  Isn't happening.

Clearly, they must be destroyed, since the mythical 'pause' is current exhibit A for the denier crowd.  No worries though, after it gets shown to be a myth, there will be another.

So, let's subpoena ALL the involved scientist's personal communications, financial records, work records with their employers, etc, with the full force and authority of the US congress, and then 'leak' ALL of it to a right wing website for the 'crowd' to pore over and find things that are suspicious.....and they find NOTHING.  A hell of a way to run an 'investigation', sure, but maybe a great way to run an intimidation campaign.



sportbikerider78 said:


> I agree with Bernie in that we should not be giving away hundreds of millions of taxpayer money to big oil corporations. That is criminal. What good does sueing them and then giving them money do?
> http://www.theguardian.com/environm...sidising-worlds-biggest-fossil-fuel-companies



That's EASY.  The Justice Dept is DOING ITS JOB enforcing LAWS.  Serious laws about big companies (that apparently own a few ranking members of Congress) lying to their own shareholders for decades about a serious threat to their business model.

The result of the RICO suit is NOT about a fine of a few billion dollars...pfft, XOM can find that in the sofa cushions.  It is about forcing the company to admit the truth to its shareholders, and the consequences of that truth.  Basically, that AGW means a finite amount of CO2 can be emitted in the future, the amount that can be emitted is small enough that XOM will not be able to grow its oil business going forward, many of its assets in the ground are effectively worthless, and it does in fact (allegedly, internally) project significantly reduced future oil sales and price/barrel as competitors seize market share....a process that started in earnest in 2014!

IOW, they have been lying to shareholders for decades, propping up the idea that they will be profitable forever, and thus their stock price as well.  In fact, their oil business is a dead man walking and their stock is overvalued.

The truth will out.


----------



## woodgeek (May 25, 2016)

More fun with Lamar, in an older article: http://www.vox.com/2015/11/22/9777582/lamar-smith-noaa

Bottom line, it used to be the case that if the Science Cmte wanted to launch an investigation (not its primary function, of course) it needed to notify all its members and have them approve.  The GOP leadership changed the rules of the cmte so that Lamar can now personally launch investigations and subpoenas, with the full force of congress, without the approval of any members of the cmte even being notified, let alone having to approve.

All the better to witchhunt with, don't you know.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And a query to those who are skeptical of the merits of the RICO case....

If the RICO case had no merits, why would Exxon care?  They have plenty of lawyers on board to keep busy, shoveling non-damaging documents to choke Schneiderman's intake funnel.  I don't see what Lamar's incentive is for embarassing himself and spending political capital going after state-level AGs...unless someone is 'pulling his string'.  If Exxon is pulling his string, then this suggests that they are using their big guns to try to shut down or drown out the RICO case....if we think Lamar is the 'biggest gun' Exxon has (who would be bigger?) then this would imply there is a case.

In a less paranoid vein, if there was no RICO case here (or other embarassment), why would Exxon fight it?  Why not let the AGs 'pizz up a rope' to use BB"s phrase, and let their pet Lamar focus his efforts in more fruitful areas....like terrorizing scientists.  Those AGs are not going to scare easy.


----------



## sportbikerider78 (May 26, 2016)

The DOJ isn't just doing their job.  They are off the wall crazy when it comes to the environment.  Wasn't it friendly Attorney General Lynch that was just investigating people just because they don't hold to man made climate change theory?  Launching investigations into political opponents of the administration isn't really don't your job.  

Some champions of climate change policy aren't so good at hiding the truth behind their policies.  
Edenhofer..former UN climate official from 2008-2015

“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole,” said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.

“We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy,” said Edenhofer.

This is why environmental policy gets so political.  From the top down, it starts as politics and trickles into environmental policy.


----------



## woodgeek (May 26, 2016)

Please provide links to AG Lynch investigating people just because they don't believe in AGW.

I am not aware of the US AG being involved in the Exxon RICO case...which begs the question why not?


----------



## woodgeek (May 26, 2016)

Ok.  In March 2016 US AG Lynch was asked by a Dem Senator a (vague) question regarding whether she (the DOJ) was pursuing civil actions against fossil fuel companies and 'deniers'.  And she said 'it was discussed', 'information she received was forwarded to the FBI', and that 'she was not aware of a civil referral'.  IOW, she gets a tip/information, discusses it with her staff, forwards it to FBI as standard operating procedure, and that is all she wrote.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...al-action-against-climate-change-deniers.html

Given the amount of winger electrons spent discussing this 2 minute CSPAN exchange, you would think she was preparing to round people up and shoot them (which is indeed what the commenters seem convinced is imminent).  In fact, this was a question about civil penalties against climate denier organizations and funders.....and there is nothing being pursued.  In my reading, the Dem Senator was likely giving her a hard time for not pursuing either civil cases or a RICO case.

But I could see how an internal discussion at DOJ (an investigative body), and the decision to DO NOTHING, is totally equivalent to the House summarily changing its rules to give all its committee chairs (including those not charged with any investigative role) unchecked powers to write Congressional subpoenas against anyone they want, which than has one guy writing subpoenas to a bunch of scientific journals, universities, scientists, private citizens, and state-level Attornies-General, and then 'leaking' the info to winger sites, etc.


----------



## woodgeek (May 26, 2016)

sportbikerider78 said:


> Some champions of climate change policy aren't so good at hiding the truth behind their policies.
> Edenhofer..former UN climate official from 2008-2015
> 
> “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole,” said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.
> ...



Did you read the 2010 interview from which that quote was taken:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/18/ipcc-official-“climate-policy-is-redistributing-the-worlds-wealth”/

Edenhofer said:
"First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy."

He is saying that the developed countries have taken (*past tense*) something from the developing countries....what?  The ability to emit CO2 and use FFs.  That is, if the Earth can only handle a certain amount of carbon emissions (his job at IPCC is to figure out how much is ok), and the developed countries emit that first, then the developing countries have lost the ability to develop by burning FFs.  IOW, our current 'climate policy', namely that anyone burns whatever they want, has had in fact (de facto) the effect of shutting out developing countries from the historical pathway by which countries become wealthy.

This is indeed the major issue in determining what future climate policy the world should have....the developing world feels that we (you and me both) have gotten rich by burning fossil fuels, and **stolen their future**.

You are welcome to disagree with that logic (just like I disagree with it)....but most people in the developing world DO believe in AGW, and DO believe that we (the developed countries) have behaved in a hypocritical manner....we can burn FFs, but you must not.  Edenhofer was explaining and discussing this issue in a policy interview....which was then taken out of context and misinterpreted in winger sites....for 6 years.  

In fact...this logic is precisely why all the climate summits up until recently were total failures....the rich countries told the poor ones to stop building FF plants, and the poor countries said they would be happy to do that if the rich countries built them a whole renewable energy system for free.  Obviously, there was some disagreement.

What has changed **since 2010** is that renewable energy has gotten bigger, better and much cheaper.  It is now so cheap that the poorer countries are starting to realize that FF plants will be white elephants and that they should leapfrog to a 21st century energy system.

After all, countries have been developing faster and faster over time.  In 2000 China had a GDP per capita equivalent to the US in 1900, and now its like the US in 1950.  They came as far in 15 years as we did in 50.  That is because they had better technology.  They don't go through the whole progression of different inefficient technologies the US did 1900-1950, they just skip to the latest and greatest stuff.

And so it will be with energy.

China figured that out around 2013, starting building more wind and solar (and soon, EVs) than the rest of the world combined and we have had progress on climate negotiations.


----------



## woodgeek (May 27, 2016)

Some of the major shareholders at XOM are demanding the company prepare a financial projection assuming future reduced global oil demand:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/24/s...e-as-climate-shifts-along-with-attitudes.html

XOM has repeatedly avoided a shareholder vote on this issue, and the SEC has ruled that their earlier comments on climate change were inadequate and that a vote must be held.

It was last Wednesday, in Houston.

http://gizmodo.com/exxonmobil-shareholders-vote-to-ignore-climate-change-c-1778705369
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/05/25/3781929/exxon-votes-against-climate-action/

The outcome of the vote was no such report will be 'prepared' or published.  The major shareholders who backed the report production included the pension funds of several large cities in the US, the country of Norway sovereign fund and the Anglican church.

XOM CEO Rex Tillerson was asked:
_"What happens if the company loses the coming court battles… ? How is Exxon calculating the financial risk it would face if fossil fuel companies have to pay for damage from climate change?"

Tillerson’s offered one sentence before going to the next question: “Speculating on future court events would be irresponsible on my part, and therefore those numbers would be unestimable (sic),” he said.

Also:"The world is going to have to continue using fossil fuels, whether they like it or not."
_
Apparently he agrees with Bill Gates that we 'need an energy miracle', by which they mean something _other_ than existing RE technology and Li-ion EVs.

In other news...XOM's stock price has reached a 14 month high.

And the case(s) roll on.

I claim that **of course** XOM has performed this projection...it is due diligence for any major company....and they have very good accountants and think twelve steps ahead.  They are simply claiming that they haven't, and won't show it to the shareholders that want to see it....and a majority of shareholders want to keep it buried.  The RICO suit alleges this is a conspiracy against the concerned shareholders.

The truth will out.


----------



## woodgeek (May 30, 2016)

Some more big guns came out this week:

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/26/senators-climate-change-denial-oil-companies

Five US senators, including notably Ted Cruz, wrote a letter to the US DOJ demanding that they stop any and all investigations into XOMs conduct reporting or denying Global Warming.

Some quotes from the letter:
"_We write today to demand that the Department of Justice (DoJ) immediately cease its ongoing use of law enforcement resources to stifle private debate on one of the most controversial public issues of our time,_"
_
“Initiating criminal prosecution for a private entity’s opinions on climate change is a blatant violation of the first amendment, and an abuse of power that rises to the level of prosecutorial misconduct.”

"disturbing confirmation that government officials are threatening to wield the sword of law enforcement to silence debate on climate change"_

_The senators asked for a response within two weeks to confirm that the department ends all investigations “arising from any private individual or entity’s views on climate change”, and assurance that no one will be persecuted “simply for disagreeing with the prevailing climate change orthodoxy”._

In other words, the senators are arguing that an investigation in XOM's decade long conspiracy of silence against its shareholders violates the company's right to free speech.

Regarding the free speech issue NY AG has said:
“_The first amendment, ladies and gentlemen, does not give you the right to commit fraud._”

Notably, of course the letter does NOT mention XOM or any oil company by name as the target of this investigation....leaving it sounding like the DOJ is conducting witchhunts against private citizens and their right to free speech, rather than a (hypothetical) RICO case against one of the largest corporations on the planet...just another innocent 'private entity' (who happens to funnel a mountain of cash to the Senators pockets).

Note from upthread that the US DOJ, specifically AG Lynch, has *not* confirmed that she has even started an investigation.  The Guardian article reports that more than a dozen US states have started such investigations....other than NY and CA I have not seen this reported in US media.

The article ends:
_Cruz has proven a staunch opponent of anyone who warns about global warming, and has called a jazz vocalist to testify opposite a meteorologist and former navy admiral. The oil and gas industry gave more to the Texas senator’s campaign than to any other candidate’s in the Republican primary election. The letter is one of Cruz’s first prominent actions since his reluctant return to the Senate._

I think where there's smoke, there's fire.


----------



## woodgeek (May 30, 2016)

In case anyone is starting to get confused about the point of this thread, what with all the US and state DOJs, and US Congressional shenanigans, I will try to make it simple:

My exhibit A is this:  Exxon's "The Outlook for Energy: A View to 2040", proudly hosted on their own corporate website:
http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/energy/energy-outlook

Exxon and the other majors have published annual reports since I was a little kid about the state of world energy, filled with charts about the use and future needs for different fossil fuels.  Often magazines will do lengthy review articles or special issues on energy, I remember one from National Geographic in the 1970s, which draw heavily from this source material.

These reports represent a decades long PR effort (that I had no problem with) that seeks to connect the dots in people's minds:
--everything you and civilization does needs energy
--we (the oil majors) ARE energy
--you and civilization NEED us (the oil majors).

And I think it was highly effective.  There are a lot of people that are having a very hard time believing that we can have a modern society that does not use as much oil as ours does.  Like half as much, or a quarter.  They deep down thinks its just impossible.

IMO, these decades of reports have drilled into us that: MODERN LIFE == ENERGY == OIL

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson said it plainly this past week:  "_The reality is there is no alternative energy source known on the planet or available to us today_"  He is not an AGW denier....he is a _Renewable Energy denier_.  For evidence in that comment he _specifically cited_ Bill Gates'  "controversial calls for investment in new technology over a widespread transition to the solar and wind technologies we do have."

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/05/25/3781929/exxon-votes-against-climate-action/

In other words:  LIFE == ENERGY == OIL,  there are NO ALTERNATIVES!

A little history:

First, decades ago, we had 'Wind and solar are for CRAZY HIPPIES'
then, we had 'Wind and solar DON'T WORK'
then, we had 'Wind and solar are TOO EXPENSIVE'
then, we had ''Wind and solar will BREAK THE GRID, and rebuilding the grid will be TOO EXPENSIVE"

even as lots of places and grids seem to be doing just fine with lots of wind and solar, we had a parallel narrative:

'OIL is irreplaceable as a transportation fuel'
'We can't grow our food without OIL'
'We can't make plastics or pharmaceuticals without OIL'

And now we know that the above statements are just as untrue as the ones about solar and wind.  More than half of current oil goes to light transportation that can be readily substituted with existing or near future EVs, at lower total cost of ownership (!) and the ENERGY supplied by the existing GRID, with off-peak charging.  The chemical and Ag uses are in the single digits of oil usage....we are not getting rid of oil, we are getting rid of half of it.

In 2016, we can see replacing half of electricity (e.g. coal) with solar and wind, and we can see replacing half of oil use with EVs.  Most people think that by the time we get to replacing half, we will probably have figured out how to replace most of the other half.  For materials...biomass can provide nearly all the needed feedstock

Is this bad for Rex....Yup....in a world where we use half as much oil as currently OPEC and other low cost producers could provide nearly ALL of it.  In a world using half a much oil, the expensive producers (i.e. the oil sands, US oil frackers and US offshore) are all GONE.  Exxon will continue as a gas company, an oil refiner and a chemical company, a shadow of its former self.

When will we get to half the oil usage? Science tells us that we must get there ASAP, and Paris says that all the countries of the earth are putting together plans to get there!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In other words: the content of the Exxon 'Energy Outlook' is BULL.  And everyone knows it.  OIL is (largely) REPLACEABLE and will be (largely) REPLACED, and anyone who knows econ 101 knows that XOM lives mostly in the half that is going away.  We are supposed to believe that XOM's greatest minds who are great at three-dimensional chess and outmaneuvering all the competition DIDN'T SEE the coming trainwreck that will destroy their oil business?

We must believe that **because they have never issued any statements on the subject, that address the possibility in an even hypothetical way**.

They just keep peddling the 'exponential growth of oil consumption until 2040' story, the 'Energy Outlook to 2040'.  And lots of folks still read it with a straight face.

This is their pivot on Global Warming....not that global warming is not real, but that there's nothing anyone can do about it.  Sure, levy a $10/ton tax on Carbon if you want....our projections still see robust growth until 2040....other scenarios...there are no other scenarios.

When they are asked about the increasing ridiculousness of this position, Rex says '_The reality is there is no alternative energy source known on the planet or available to us today_'.

In their single 'white paper' on the carbon bubble released last year, now taken down,
https://web.archive.org/web/20140702013306/http://cdn.exxonmobil.com/~/media/Files/Other/2014/Report - Energy and Carbon - Managing the Risks.pdf
https://www.hearth.com/talk/threads/to-strand-or-not-to-strand-that-is-the-question-for-xom.143389/
Exxon argued that their projected exponential growth in oil consumption was lower than that assumed by the other majors like BP and the US govt agency the EIA.  Notably, the EIA is required by details of their charter to assume that renewable energy growth _goes to zero_ in the near future.  The EIA works for the same congress discussed upthread, and the requirement is explicit and they mention it in their report to explain what some people find to be an absurd projection.

And Bill Gates, noted technology expert and futurist, who also thinks renewable energy kinda sucks.

That's what they've got for 'cover' in 2016...a faulty analysis done by a hamstrung govt agency and the opinion of Bill Gates.

The alternative is that they have known that decreasing global demand (due to AGW) is an existential threat to their business, have known that their production and assets are more expensive than OPEC and other sovereigns, and have known about it for decades, and have done what they could to forestall the inevitable while **denying it to their shareholders**.  The last bit is *illegal*, since it means that their financial reports do not reflect their opinion of future business prospects and company valuation.

And that is the RICO case.

Their 'tell' is their near total silence on the issue, the contested shareholder votes to maintain that silence, and the increasingly ridiculous 'Outlook'.

Here is what it says about renewable energy:
_Modern renewable fuels – wind, solar and biofuels – also will grow rapidly. Globally, these sources will more than triple from 2014 to 2040. The largest volume growth will come from wind, which by 2040 is projected to supply about 2 percent of the world’s energy and nearly 10 percent of its electricity. 

http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/energy/energy-outlook/fulfilling-future-supply/future_

Wind provided 3.5% of US electricity in 2014, has already grown to 5% by 2016, and they are saying for the world to get to 10% will take _25 more years_.  Solar, at 1% of US electricity and its 50% annual growth rate do not rate being mentioned at all in the projection...it might 'triple' over the next 25 years.  Compare that to solar's 5000% growth over the last 15 years.

They are lying, and they know it, and they've known it for a long time.


----------



## Doug MacIVER (May 31, 2016)

woodgeek said:


> In case anyone is starting to get confused about the point of this thread, what with all the US and state DOJs, and US Congressional shenanigans, I will try to make it simple:
> 
> My exhibit A is this:  Exxon's "The Outlook for Energy: A View to 2040", proudly hosted on their own corporate website:
> http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/energy/energy-outlook
> ...


----------



## woodgeek (May 31, 2016)

Doug MacIVER said:


> nice job in resetting up your argument. all great points. the one thing you leave out is, here it comes, all you have said is not possible without FF! from mines to final setup FF rule and will continue. time will be the most important factor, rushing any or all will case needless economic pains. our winter electric rate in New England as an example. close what are really clean coal plants before replacement is ready?(sorry for the underline, don't know what I did?) good discussion, never fail to learn something ,thanks
> let's add this little ditty, love to do this to my facility. if we did put it up the local criminals would steal it all."Walmart is reportedly the top solar customer in the U.S., having already installed 260 solar projects on store rooftops -- which can provide as much as 30% of the power used by that facility. Walmart says it has already saved more than $5 million on its energy bill.



Agreed.  

As for needing FF in the past and the present....yup.  I think respect for our ancestors is pretty important...we can never walk in their shoes or know how many of their challenges have been lost to the memory hole.  I am not into being ashamed of our history, nor shaming anyone in the present.

As for doing things in a 'rush'...no worries. When it comes to wind and solar, it appears that the US is clearly bringing up the rear, and not really getting in until the price point is there....and the (expensive) learning curve has already been paid for by taxpayers in other countries.    Go USA.

I looked up Walmart...looks like that have an installed capacity of ~100 MW, so they probably produce about 150 million kWh per year.  There are at least 10 separate solar farms in the US that have larger capacity....the biggest ones are close to 10x that size.

It looks like total solar energy production in the US in 2015 is about 40,000 million kWh, so Walmart is about 0.4% of total US solar production.  For reference, they represent ~11% of all retail commerce in the US.  They can afford it. Respectable, and better than mere greenwashing....but not clear what 'top solar customer in US' means.  Sounds like PR.


----------



## Doug MacIVER (May 31, 2016)

woodgeek said:


> Agreed.
> 
> As for needing FF in the past and the present....yup.  I think respect for our ancestors is pretty important...we can never walk in their shoes or know how many of their challenges have been lost to the memory hole.  I am not into being ashamed of our history, nor shaming anyone in the present.
> 
> ...





woodgeek said:


> Agreed.
> 
> As for needing FF in the past and the present....yup.  I think respect for our ancestors is pretty important...we can never walk in their shoes or know how many of their challenges have been lost to the memory hole.  I am not into being ashamed of our history, nor shaming anyone in the present.
> 
> ...




Trying to stay away from winger sites, this bit of PR put out by MSN. solar farm to individual roof top installs? I kinda found it interesting what a disliked company as Walmart is quietly doin. hell maybe over stated by MSN http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/39-facts-you-didnt-know-about-walmart/ss-BBsYinL#image=4


----------



## BrotherBart (May 31, 2016)

As an XOM retiree and shareholder my head hurts. In 2005 they were supposed to tell us they would be out of oil in ten years or so. Now they are supposed to tell us they will get stuck with a bazillion barrels that are worthless. At  an indeterminate date.

I think I will do the same thing I did in 2005. The full text of that follows:


----------



## woodgeek (Jun 1, 2016)

A lot of action is at the FF-funded think tanks...ALEC and the CEI (Competitive Enterprise Institute).  

CEI is fighting back with a full page ad/letter in the NYTimes entitled "Abuse of Power"
https://cei.org/sites/default/files/NYT - CEI Open Letter Ad - FINAL - May 17 2016.pdf
claiming the the investigation by the state AGs is an assault of freedom of speech.

The AG of the US Virgin Islands has withdrawn his subpoena against CEI...but is standing by the others.


----------



## woodgeek (Jun 1, 2016)

BrotherBart said:


> As an XOM retiree and shareholder my head hurts. In 2005 they were supposed to tell us they would be out of oil in ten years or so. Now they are supposed to tell us they will get stuck with a bazillion barrels that are worthless. At  an indeterminate date.
> 
> I think I will do the same thing I did in 2005. The full text of that follows:



The noteworthy difference of course is that the Peak Oil movement was always a bunch of cranks, that never published a damn thing AFAIK in a peer reviewed journal, and got very little traction in US govt policy....except, um, the Hirsch report and some Defense Department planning scenarios.

In contrast,
1. AGW is scientific canon that has been building for 40 years, is endorsed by the US National Academy of Science, the AAAS, etc.
2. the Paris Treaty response to AGW is a framework for a global policy plan to **disrupt the oil business** explicitly.
3. XOM's official response to shareholders appears to be sticking its fingers in its ears and singing Yankee Doodle.
4. XOM's unofficial response appears to be pulling every lever they have with Congress and former congressmen (now handsomely paid at think tanks) to block all investigation into the legality of their 'official response' to their shareholders.


----------



## woodgeek (Jun 8, 2016)

The male candidate for POTUS has named his new national political director, Jim Murphy, who was formerly president of the DCI Group a Washington PR firm, from 2002-2012:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/06/us/politics/trump-hires.html

The DCI Group is famous for representing Tobacco Companies, and forming 'astroturf' groups....fake grassroots groups for various causes such as 'smoker's rights' and Social Security Privatization.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...eet-donald-trump-s-controversial-new-man.html

The DCI Group held a 2006 conference called “Strategic Discussion Regarding the Clean Air Act." which spawned the modern global warming denial movement.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/320999-heartland-exxon-clean-air-act-mtg-2006.html

And, of course, the DCI Group has been subpoenaed as part of the Exxon RICO case.

http://www.prwatch.org/news/2016/04...-expanding-exxon-climate-denial-investigation


----------



## begreen (Jun 8, 2016)

Master spin doctor at plausible deniability. Create doubt where little is warranted.


----------



## jackatc1 (Jun 8, 2016)

Another angle.

http://naturalgasnow.org/the-rockefeller-family-special-interests-behind-the-rico-scam/


----------



## sportbikerider78 (Jun 8, 2016)

woodgeek said:


> Did you read the 2010 interview from which that quote was taken:
> 
> https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/18/ipcc-official-“climate-policy-is-redistributing-the-worlds-wealth”/
> 
> ...



Do some research on Edenhofer and find out that his interest in economics and philosophy came from Karl Marx and John Dewey.  His words not mine.  As you very well know, Karl Marx is the father of communism and it its core is wealth redistribution.  Dewey was a democratic socialist and humanist...which was in-line with Marx's beliefs as well.  

Read some more of his writings.  He morally condemns anyone that doesn't believe (not sure if I'm using the right term) climate change is a threat to humanity.


----------



## woodgeek (Jun 8, 2016)

sportbikerider78 said:


> Do some research on Edenhofer and find out that his interest in economics and philosophy came from Karl Marx and John Dewey.  His words not mine.  As you very well know, Karl Marx is the father of communism and it its core is wealth redistribution.  Dewey was a democratic socialist and humanist...which was in-line with Marx's beliefs as well.
> 
> Read some more of his writings.  He morally condemns anyone that doesn't believe (not sure if I'm using the right term) climate change is a threat to humanity.
> 
> True science has no place morally condemning anyone for anything.  Good theories stand on their own two feet and don't require heretical hysteria such as the sky is falling.



Yeah, I read a lot of Marx in college too, and I have to say that he certainly seemed more right than wrong about a lot of things....largely about the effects of technology ('capital') on wealth distribution, and saying that unregulated capitalism is unstable against all the money eventually flowing to too few hands (who own the factory/technology).  Clearly he, and early american socialists underestimated the effectiveness of the regulation of capitalism to avoid these worst features....and the debate about how to best regulate capitalism continues to the this day.  As much as FDR is vilified by the right, the progressivism that he gave us is often credited with the US avoiding a socialist revolution (widely predicted at the time).  Remember that 1984 was set in the UK.

More recently, we have had the Thomas Piketty celebrity and a self-described democratic socialist running for a major party ticket....I'm not a 'bro' but I did see a few thousand young and affluent looking people rallying excitedly around another fan of Marx in Washington Square.  You might want to be a little more careful with using Marx as an epithet, comrade.  

It is also true that in logic, the right answer does not depend on the morality of the arguments....and that a scientific conclusion cannot in itself be considered moral or immoral.  That said, if I have logically and scientifically determined that the object under the bleachers is an armed bomb, that scientific and logical deduction leads directly to a moral question....to do something about the threat (moral) or to walk away (immoral)?

It is possible to conclude scientifically that global warming is a major (slow motion) threat to human well-being, and to then find that that conclusion leads to a moral imperative, without somehow being a 'bad scientist'.  To label anyone who suggests that a scientific conclusion might lead to a moral dilemma as an 'alarmist' is a different kind of intellectual blindness.

The history of science is replete with these moral dilemmas being created by advances in technology, and yet the technology itself is neither moral nor immoral, of course.  In the case of fossil fuels it was a slow burn....clearly the development of FF nearly 200 years ago brought with it the industrial revolution and amazing improvements to the human condition....clearly a huge moral good....but the same FF technology has latent in its use over longer periods of time the inevitable property of doing great damage to the same human condition...and so its use, sustained indefinitely...is now immoral.

Is this really so hard to understand?


----------



## woodgeek (Jun 8, 2016)

jackatc1 said:


> Another angle.
> 
> http://naturalgasnow.org/the-rockefeller-family-special-interests-behind-the-rico-scam/



So, basically the Rockefeller family wants to expand its land holdings in upstate NY, including land currently leased by XOM, and has formed a conspiracy that includes the Gov of NY, the DOJ of several states including NY, the national environmental org NRDC, as well as bunch of climate activists and academics, to bring a baseless RICO charge against Exxon so.....Exxon will consider itself 'blackmailed' and will give up the leases to the land to the Rockefellers, who will then be able to buy it at less than market value....and drop all the charges.

Unstated is the assumption that the national media must be clueless (or in on the conspiracy) because they have not been reporting this obvious conclusion.

Did I get that right?


----------



## semipro (Jun 8, 2016)

sportbikerider78 said:


> Good theories stand on their own two feet and don't require heretical hysteria such as the sky is falling.


One would like to hope so.  
However, it seems that an overwhelming preponderance of objective evidence can  be countered by the hysterical nonsense of a few telling folks what they want to believe rather than what they should believe.


----------



## sportbikerider78 (Jun 9, 2016)

Again,,the question is how much does the human species impact any kind of change on the climate?  That is a very difficult thing to test, draw conclusions from and then impact economic policy based on the assumptions made.

Is that statement morally unjust?  If so, by what moral standard?  

Climate does change.  We all know that...to say it does not would be ridiculous.  But why does it change and how much is natural and how much is man caused?  Why do we not openly have that conversation and dialogue?  Because the people that are pushing this movement don't want that dialogue because they don't know the answer.  
You hear one word when talking about climate change... and that word is "man".  That is not scientific.  That is political and it is incorrect.

Let's talk about how much is natural, how much is man caused and then figure out where to go from there.


----------



## woodgeek (Jun 9, 2016)

sportbikerider78 said:


> Again,,the question is how much does the human species impact any kind of change on the climate?  That is a very difficult thing to test, draw conclusions from and then impact economic policy based on the assumptions made.
> 
> Is that statement morally unjust?  If so, by what moral standard?
> 
> ...



If you don't believe in 'man-made climate change', which I think is usually called anthropogenic global warming, AGW, then you would conclude that burning FF is a moral position.  I get that.  You might be making an incorrect conclusion, but not an explicitly immoral one.

"Why do we not openly have that conversation and dialogue?"  We did.  Its called the scientific literature and its open for all to read, and the data is usually online for anyone to replicate the study or analysis themselves.  The result is that the models have been refined over time, their uncertainty has fallen, the observed AGW signal has gotten larger, so the 'statistical confidence' that recent climate warming is human caused has gone up significantly in the last 20 years.

Importantly, I personally don't feel the need to rely on a statistical argument or the 'observation' of AGW AT ALL....if we were speeding toward a cliff that we could see, should we not be alarmed until after we have gone over the cliff and feel ourselves falling?

A simple energy balance calculation based on college-level math and physics correctly estimates the magnitude of the total greenhouse effect on the earth..about 40°F....a calculation done for the first time in the 1800s.  So the idea that doubling one of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere could increase global temp by 3-4°F hardly seems far-fetched.  Given the significant consequences of such a mean temp increase (human displacement, mass extinction, etc) it seems sensible and conservative to me to believe that doubling CO2 is unwise until proven otherwise.  In fact, attempts to more exactly compute the effect of doubling CO2 show that it is (good news) somewhat smaller than estimated decades ago but (bad news) also exclude the 'no problem' case completely.  And unrestricted burning of commercially recoverable FFs would way more than double pre-industrial CO2 levels.

And this would be just as true even if there had been no global warming observation over the last several decades.  The observations that match predictions are just 'icing'....they are not the 'cake' of the argument. 

Stated another way....the idea you propose....that someone somehow must prove or demonstrate that some portion of recently observed 'climate change' is due to human activity, and that failing that then AGW is 'unproven'...is itself not based on scientific or logical reasoning...and is a denier 'tactic'.


----------



## woodgeek (Jun 16, 2016)

A bit of a sneak preview IMO of what we might see come out of the XOM/ALEC/CEI/Heartland Inst subpeonas....ClimateGate in reverse.

The climate denial funding network is laid bare by the bankruptcy filing of the (formerly) largest public coal company on earth: Peabody Energy.  (For reference, in 2011 the company had a market cap above $20B.)

Turns out they were funding a lot of XOM's buddy think tanks....

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...rgy-coal-mining-climate-change-denial-funding

They were also behind the anti-Clean Power Plan lawsuits, put forward notably by 'liberal hero' lawyer (and Obama mentor) Lawrence Tribe.  Turns out Tribe is personally getting paid _at least_ $435k for 6 mos work this year on the case, which might be little more than just signing his name on the docs.

http://www.vox.com/2016/6/16/11939232/peabody-energy-the-worst

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/12/08/3600343/tribe-peabody-constitutional-carbon-rule/

Follow the money....


----------



## begreen (Jun 16, 2016)

Makes sense that Peabody would be a player. I suspect there are several dirty hands in this plot. Some of this funding for contrarian scientists is non-trivial.


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Jul 17, 2016)

this stuff will be in court for years. mann vs steyn same thing, headed to 5yrs?
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-climate-police-crack-up-1467933366


----------



## woodgeek (Jul 19, 2016)

The latest....our man Lamar is now using his (unprecedented) subpoena powers to subpoena the MA and NY AGs documents related to the RICO case, claiming that he is protecting the free speech of scientists (at Exxon)....

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/...enas-state-ags-eric-schneiderman-maura-healey

this is an escalation of his earlier threats, after which some AGs caved...like the one in the Virgin Islands.

Sorry Doug, I couldn't read the WSJ article behind its paywall....excerpts?


----------



## woodgeek (Jul 26, 2016)

An interesting article on the XOM shareholder's failed revolt....

http://www.bloomberg.com/gadfly/col...exxon-mobil-proxy-vote-loss-small-but-telling


----------



## woodgeek (Aug 19, 2016)

A recent rather informative article at NYTimes details the motivations and particulars of the Exxon RICO case:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/20/s...y-said-to-focus-more-on-future-than-past.html

The summary is very much in line with what has emerged in this thread....that this is about XOM not sharing their best projections regarding their future business model and profitability with their shareholders, simply because some projections show steeply decreasing income and profits due to reduced global oil demand and price.  Period.

It is NOT about prosecuting XOM's past (or present) activities funding global warming misinformation.  That is not illegal.
It is NOT about limiting the freedom of speech of the XOM 'entity' or any of its officers.  Freedom of speech does not protect fraudulent speech by a company to its shareholders.

I also learned some stuff:

NYAG previously brought a similar case against coal giant Peabody Energy.  The company *settled*, and as a term of that settlement was forced to disclose its own internal projections about its future business model, in a world with slowly declining coal demand.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/09/b...o-greater-disclosures-of-financial-risks.html

NYAG Schneider *won*.  Peabody's stock price has fallen 96% over the last 5 years, due to an expectation that the coal business will slowly shrink, versus slowly grow over the next couple decades.

I also learned that NYAG has already received 100,000s of docs from XOM, and that he is _ignoring_ the subpoena from XOM congressional lackey Lamar Smith, citing 'states rights'.  I guess that congress' lack of an enforcement mechanism (they don't have troops or enforcement officers) makes the threat a little toothless for a DOJ. LOL.


----------



## Snagdaddy (Aug 21, 2016)

Here's some background on the legal shenanigans being used to push climate hysteria forward.  The winning tactics used against big tobacco are in play:

https://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2015/11/02/rico-teering/

Again, scientists are on a short leash these days because they won't get the big foundation money from george soros unless they play along.

http://netrightdaily.com/2010/11/ge...n-climate-change-shakedown-aimed-against-u-s/

Meanwhile, the world is heading toward another "tipping point" that could send the world spinning out of control.  What a joke.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/04...n-first-issued-10-year-tipping-point-in-1989/


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Aug 21, 2016)

this is from a 10 year old article, still I think it remains relevant in todays politics of agw. here is one quote "Skeptics about global warming are often painted as hirelings of the oil and automotive industries. Such claims irritate me. I have never earned a nickel as a consequence of my skepticism. Indeed, I have lost hundreds of thousands of dollars by it. First, you have to understand how a large research university operates. The professors are expected to obtain research grants, and in the atmospheric sciences these grants come mostly from government agencies."

here is the link which is a question posed to a retired penn state prof http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/aprilholladay/2006-08-07-global-warming-truth_x.htm


----------



## woodgeek (Aug 22, 2016)

Doug MacIVER said:


> this is from a 10 year old article, still I think it remains relevant in todays politics of agw. here is one quote "Skeptics about global warming are often painted as hirelings of the oil and automotive industries. Such claims irritate me. I have never earned a nickel as a consequence of my skepticism. Indeed, I have lost hundreds of thousands of dollars by it. First, you have to understand how a large research university operates. The professors are expected to obtain research grants, and in the atmospheric sciences these grants come mostly from government agencies."
> 
> here is the link which is a question posed to a retired penn state prof http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/aprilholladay/2006-08-07-global-warming-truth_x.htm



This article seemed quite thin gruel to me.  A long rant by ONE retired prof in 2005....the guy may have retired in the 90s.  He counts himself an honest AGW skeptic, based upon the science he (presumably) read up to 2005 (or 1995 or 2000, if he stopped staying current then).  

In my experience, there were a lot more honest skeptics in the 90s and 00s.  The computer models back then were VERY primitive compared to what we can do now (one example....many models then treated the atmosphere as only one or two dimensional).  The volume of papers (addressing different questions) was smaller, so there were a lot of unanswered questions at that point.  In 2016, the models and data have both improved massively, and I don't know anyone in the sciences who remains an 'honest skeptic'.

He's basically complaining about alarmism in the media, which the media uses to sell advertising.  I agree with the premise.  

The 'conspiracy theory' part of the quote is that the govt will only fund projects that support its viewpoint....nuts.  For one, when the article was written in 2005 the govt was in GOP control.  Why didn't all this 'AGW skeptic' work get funded and published then?  Answer: because it doesn't hold water.  Maybe he's saying the senior scientists (like the NAS) are blocking the truth for their own gain....NAS members I know are all fat and happy money-wise, and have no motivation to form a grand conspiracy...and more to the point, they don't seem like the personality types to pull one off if they tried.

Other than that I got a Grandpa Simpson vibe from the guys rant...'Hey kids, get offa my lawn'.


----------



## woodgeek (Aug 22, 2016)

Snagdaddy said:


> Here's some background on the legal shenanigans being used to push climate hysteria forward.  The winning tactics used against big tobacco are in play:
> 
> https://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2015/11/02/rico-teering/



This entire blog post seems very poorly reasoned.  This guy starts with the premise that the merits of the XOM RICO case are non-existent, figures that the very idea itself is unimaginable, and so it must have been dreamed up by some malevolent actor who then formed a conspiracy that culminated in some state AGs bringing suit.  Since getting AGs to bring a baseless suit is presumably difficult, this conspiracy must have some powerful players.

It is clear that this is the overall opinion of the suit by bloggers on the far right, and aligns with the stated positions of some elected official like Lamar Smith and Ted Cruz.

I don't feel the need to respond to it in detail, but this reasoning is (i) a lengthy logical deduction/speculation from a flawed starting point: "Assume that there is no AGW, XOM understands this, and there is nothing to cover up to its share-holders, then how does this RICO suit come to be..." and (ii) represents folks being played (IMO) by said elected officials (who actually _are_ on the public record as receiving large payments from big oil) as 'useful idiots'.



Snagdaddy said:


> Again, scientists are on a short leash these days because they won't get the big foundation money from george soros unless they play along.
> 
> http://netrightdaily.com/2010/11/ge...n-climate-change-shakedown-aimed-against-u-s/



This thing is rather dated....being *6 years old*.  Indeed, as discussed upthread, the stalemate in global solutions to AGW at that time was the idea in undeveloped countries that our CO2 pollution was denying them the means of developing.  IF only x amount of CO2 could be put into the atmosphere, and we have already put 0.9x into the atmosphere building our economy, then they are shut out.  The only solution would be for the undeveloped countries to build out clean energy systems, which at the time were seen as prohibitively expensive, and so we (the US and EU) would need to foot the bill.

Aside: the $100B number is laughable...like Dr. Evil asking for "$1 meelion dollars."  Building out the energy infrastructure for the developing world will likely cost many **trillions** of dollars.  By the same token, if paid over time a $100B hypothetical payment would be negligible to the $35T per year EU/US GDP (0.3% of one years GDP, 0.03% if spread over a decade).

But, good news....all that thinking is *OBSOLETE*.  The developing world now understands that clean energy is cheaper (especially when factoring in health costs and living standards) than fossil energy.  China switched gears from the above tactic (asking the US/EU for cash) to becoming leaders in clean energy manufacturing and production in *2013*.  This sea change is the basis of the US's current agreement with China re CO2 emissions and the COP21.  The premise of COP21 is a breakthrough precisely because it ends the above 'shakedown' logic.



Snagdaddy said:


> Meanwhile, the world is heading toward another "tipping point" that could send the world spinning out of control.  What a joke.
> 
> http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/04...n-first-issued-10-year-tipping-point-in-1989/



I hate 'tipping points'.  There do exist physical systems whose non-linear response makes them have multiple steady states with tipping points between them.  IMO, the magnitudes of the non-linearities on the climate system have not been shown to lead to such instabilities...in other words, I do not think there is a point where the system suddenly 'snaps' to a dramatically different state. 

Still, an article cherry-picking headlines from decades past to form a narrative is not well reasoned.  The looser usage of the 'tipping point' language is probably correct...that if our goal is to avoid, say, 2°C warming, every day that passes at current emission levels means that the future changes necessary to meet/avoid the goal become that much more difficult or expensive. 

In 2000 we had a bit more time to avoid 2°C warming, but reasonable people could be skeptical regarding the affordability of changing to clean energy.  In 2015, the tech appears to be in place (with storage still in its infancy), but we have 15 fewer years to make the switch.  In 2025 I expect all the tech will be out there at scale (solar, wind, EVs, mass storage) and growing exponentially, with global oil demand and CO2 emission peaks in the rearview mirror, but a future 2°C increase will probably already be baked in.

So, am I despondent?  Not at all.  The coming clean energy revolution, even if it 'fails' and we get 2.5 or 3°C warming is WAY better than the business as usual outcome with a biosphere destroying 4, 6 or 8°C warming by 2100.


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Aug 22, 2016)

The 'conspiracy theory' part of the quote is that the govt will only fund projects that support its viewpoint....nuts. For one, when the article was written in 2005 the govt was in GOP control. Why didn't all this 'AGW skeptic' work get funded and published then? Answer: because it doesn't hold water. Maybe he's saying the senior scientists (like the NAS) are blocking the truth for their own gain....NAS members I know are all fat and happy money-wise, and have no motivation to form a grand conspiracy...and more to the point, they don't seem like the personality types to pull one off if they tried.
 If you ever read any of the other side you'll find it quite a common complaint. curry and  spencer often bring up trouble in funding.apprently funding. bias which this old guy dealt with in the past is now noexistant. good to know.


----------



## woodgeek (Aug 22, 2016)

Doug MacIVER said:


> The 'conspiracy theory' part of the quote is that the govt will only fund projects that support its viewpoint....nuts. For one, when the article was written in 2005 the govt was in GOP control. Why didn't all this 'AGW skeptic' work get funded and published then? Answer: because it doesn't hold water. Maybe he's saying the senior scientists (like the NAS) are blocking the truth for their own gain....NAS members I know are all fat and happy money-wise, and have no motivation to form a grand conspiracy...and more to the point, they don't seem like the personality types to pull one off if they tried.
> 
> If you ever read any of the other side you'll find it quite a common complaint. curry and  spencer often bring up trouble in funding.apprently funding. bias which this old guy dealt with in the past is now noexistant. good to know.



Everyone complains about funding on both sides, and of course bias is unavoidable (and cuts both ways).  That said, if someone had a **compelling** scientific argument (or model) for why AGW wasn't going to happen, I think they could get it funded quite easily by the govt, and failing that, I would bet the 'think tanks' would throw money at them.  And yet these people don't seem to be coming forward.  Weird.

Its also hard to get grants that prove that 2+2=5.


----------



## blades (Aug 23, 2016)

woodgeek said:


> Everyone complains about funding on both sides, and of course bias is unavoidable (and cuts both ways).  That said, if someone had a **compelling** scientific argument (or model) for why AGW wasn't going to happen, I think they could get it funded quite easily by the govt, and failing that, I would bet the 'think tanks' would throw money at them.  And yet these people don't seem to be coming forward.  Weird.
> 
> Its also hard to get grants that prove that 2+2=5.


 I don't know why the gov. adds 2+2 subtracs 7 and ends up +10


----------



## BrotherBart (Sep 13, 2016)

https://www.thestreet.com/story/137...he-pursuit-of-exxonmobil-hits-speed-bump.html


----------



## woodgeek (Sep 13, 2016)

The author is a financial advisor with no apparent legal training, writing a very lazy article.  He apparently got as far as the 'fight against freedom of speech' BS letters, bought them hook line and sinker, and stopped there. He did not get so far as actually examining the particulars of the case at all.  No shareholders, no SEC, no carbon bubble, no demand projections, no stranded assets.

The author makes a straw man out of the AG's case, and then kicks it over.  Where do I get that job?


----------



## woodgeek (Sep 18, 2016)

Another take on the Schneiderman case:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-exxon-mobil-probe-accounting-idUSKCN11M2HP

Basically, that it is about (at least partially) XOM not writing down now unprofitable assets when oil prices fell in Nov 2014.  The article says that the oil cos have a lot of leeway to judge whether the oil price move is temporary (so no asset write-down is needed) or long-term/permanent (in which case it is required by accounting rules).  IOW, the oil cos are the 'experts' on guessing future oil price, relative to the SEC, so they get to make up their own accounting rules.

The article goes own to say the other oil majors HAVE written down their assets relative to 2014, XOM is the last major holdout.   It also mentions that they have not written down their gas assets either, despite gas prices being low now for many years.


----------



## woodgeek (Sep 18, 2016)

So we now have a wide range of different 'explanations' of the NY AG RICO case:

A)  Its a conspiracy of the Rockefeller family to acquire land in NYS  (Doug's crazy link)
B)  Its a conspiracy of lefty enviros and academics to punish Exxon for emitting carbon  (the Ricoteer RICO stuff)
C)  The NY AG is a proxy for the Obama administration in an anti-free speech intimidation campaign forwarding the AGW 'hoax'  (Cruz and Smith in signed letters)
D)  Its about XOM's accounting rules not correctly factoring in long-term oil price threats, e.g. from EVs, COP21 or the 'Carbon Bubble' (NY Times and British papers)
E)  Its about XOM's accounting rules not correctly factoring in **current** low oil prices and their near future prospects for recovery (Reuters).

Note that issues 'D' and 'E' are really the same thing: XOM accounting rules....they shade into each other depending on the timeframe considered.  Both are also offered by 'mainstream' media sources, rather than politicos, shills or bloggers.

Rex's public statements of TINA: 'There Is No Alternative' to oil, are consistent with XOM accounting choices to consider both current low prices a temporary 'blip' and future high oil prices to be secure indefinitely into the future.  XOM shareholder battles to alter accounting rules or add new people to the board similarly reinforce this picture.

There is a 'war' going on within XOM, re understanding how its market will evolve in the future and what it should do about it.  Its public and shareholder statements on the subject are increasingly at odds with US and global public policy trends, RE technology AND the accounting rules and market projections of the other oil majors.

So, maybe

1) there will be a breakthrough research finding in AGW that will show that previously undiscovered negative feedbacks (like clouds) can account for the recent warming 'pause' and significantly reduce future warming projections, RE will falter and fade as subsidies dry up (wind PTC phase out in the US, German and UK populists roll back their costly subsidies, etc) and REX is proven correct.  XOM's stock price soars.

or

2) RE and EVs and CO2 and AGW awareness and concern continue a relentless rise, global oil demand usage and CO2 emissions both peak and begin to slowly decline.  Rex and/or his current board are forced out or to reconsider their accounting practices, and XOM's price falls.

EDIT:  the new story is triggered by a WSJ article:  http://www.wsj.com/articles/exxons-accounting-practices-are-investigated-1474018381
It also makes clear that this is a NEW line of investigation for Schneiderman, in addition to the previous case: so, D) and E).


----------



## BrotherBart (Sep 19, 2016)

I am getting a lot of entertainment value with all of the write down of assets hoopla. I read the articles chuckling and waiting for these wizards to realize that the reserves aren't what is carried on the balance sheet as assets. But the exploration and acquisition costs. And for them to realize that 75% of XOMs properties are already producing and some have been for a long, long time. And since you can't "write up" only "write down" fixed assets a lot of them were booked at and remain on the books at some really low valuations based on projected reserve values and lower equipment and acquisition costs at the time they were booked. An example being the Hawken field that I know is 75 years old and still producing.


----------



## woodgeek (Sep 19, 2016)

Jibes with the Reuters and WSJ articles....they say that when XOM develops a field they assume the amortization will be over a long term, so they don't need to take even multi-year price drops into account....just keep pumping.


----------



## woodgeek (Oct 1, 2016)

So, our man Lamar Smith does not like the SEC investigation into Exxon's accounting practices either, and smells a rat.  He has issued a subpeona to the SEC to figure out who put them up to it....

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/...ate-investigations-new-york-massachusetts-sec

The SEC told Exxon in 2014 that its 'climate impact whitepaper' was inadequate (whitepaper discussed upthread), and that it needed to redo it.  Not really a surprise to me that the SEC would follow up when no new statement was issued. Interestingly, Exxon has said that it will *comply* with the SEC investigation (into its accounting practices), unlike the RICO case that it is fighting in court.

Meanwhile, lest anyone think Lamar is overstepping his bounds, he invited a bunch of legal scholars to come in and explain that what Lamar was doing was perfectly appropriate...notably to protect science from the machinations of various bad actors including George Soros....

http://arstechnica.com/science/2016...l-justification-for-climate-change-subpoenas/

When someone pointed out that the Science Cmte had issued *1* subpeona in its 50 year history before Lamar Smith, and *24* since Lamar became chairman, Rep Smith corrected him to say that it was actually '25 and counting'....  your tax dollars at work.


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Oct 8, 2016)

woodgeek said:


> Carbon bubble issue gathers steam?
> 
> Quote from:
> http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2015/11/a-rico-exxon-lawsuit-slam-dunk-to-win.html
> ...



This came out of the democrat candidate's emails yesterday from her husband. "“I recommend that you begin by saying that this challenge is an opportunity if we approach it the right and way,” the note read, including an unnecessary word, “and provide the right financing options so that the old energy economy no longer has an advantage over new ways of providing and consuming energy.” don't think that that would be looked upon in a favorable light if it was  turned around. a glimpse into how gov't works. link to article http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/newly-released-hillary-clinton-emails-offer-glimpse-at-husband’s-advice/ar-BBx9EEE?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp


----------



## woodgeek (Oct 9, 2016)

I hear you Doug, but the 2009 email was re the Copenhagen conference....at which there was no international agreement.  Indeed, the lack of intl agreement was due to the (then) high cost of renewable energy, and the question of who would pay for deploying it in the developing world.

So, I see the email as a hypothetical discussion about a politically untenable idea that was never implemented.  Yawn.

And that is all quite irrelevant to 2016, since the costs of renewable energy have fallen dramatically since then, and all the major CO2 emitting countries are deploying RE at scale, on their own dime, and participated in an intl agreement that they will continue to do so.


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Oct 9, 2016)

woodgeek said:


> I hear you Doug, but the 2009 email was re the Copenhagen conference....at which there was no international agreement.  Indeed, the lack of intl agreement was due to the (then) high cost of renewable energy, and the question of who would pay for deploying it in the developing world.
> 
> So, I see the email as a hypothetical discussion about a politically untenable idea that was never implemented.  Yawn.
> 
> ...


----------



## woodgeek (Oct 9, 2016)

If I savvy you Doug, you seem to be implying that Paris is realizing the agenda of Copenhagen?  I disagree....Copenhagen fell apart b/c the rich countries wouldn't put up the cash, and the poor ones couldn't build RE without $$ help. Under Paris COP21 the rich countries are NOT paying to emerging economies to build out renewable energy systems.  

Each country is paying its own way these days, and the financials of RE look quite favorable, esp if you take health and welfare of the population into account.  But maybe your energy companies don't worry about the latter....many of our leaders do.


----------



## woodgeek (Oct 27, 2016)

NY Supreme Court sided with NY AG Schneiderman over Exxon....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...uce-climate-documents/?utm_term=.a473f2604648

Under TX law, company-accounting firm communications are 'privileged', in NYS they are not.  NYS law applies.


----------



## woodgeek (Oct 29, 2016)

As promised, Exxon has complied with the SECs examination of its reserves valuation model...

The WSJ has a nice article:  http://www.wsj.com/articles/exxon-mobil-profit-revenue-slide-again-1477657202

IF you don't have a subscription, you can try googling "Exxon Warns on Reserves as It Posts Lower Profit"

Bottom line, Exxon says that the new price environment (of the last 23 mos) has rendered roughly 20% or their reserves unprofitable, so they will write down a comparable amount by the end of the year (the exact %-age will depend on the oil price over the next two months)

The article has a number of details, including that most of the writedown reserves are Oil Sands in Alberta.

A little known fact is that the Oil Majors bought into a bit of oil doomerism back in the 70s, invested in solar, alternative fuels and the oil sands.  My friends that were at Exxon at the time said senior Exxon Mgmt concluded that Alberta would eventually drive the entire global market, its hydrocarbon assets were so huge.  They joked about scraping most of the surface of Alberta off, and surface mining the sands, as the logical consequence of rising global oil demand and falling supply. Those investments tanked in 1985, and the majors have been super leery of doomerism and alternative energy since. I think this 'once burned, twice shy' thing is part of Rex's skepticism of an alternative energy fueled future...its not all profiteering.

But Exxon kept its hand in Alberta, as one of its few 'unconventional' investments, like a monkey with its hand around a piece of fruit in a trap. Now after close to 40 years, it might be letting go of that prize, and its dream of cornering the world market for mid 21st century oil.

The implications for Canada are obviously significant as well.  We'll see if Justin has a plan.


----------



## woodgeek (Nov 22, 2016)

@jackatc1 theory about Rockefeller's goes mainstream:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/science/exxon-mobil-rockefellers-climate-change.html

Summary: XOM and Rep Smith include the Rockefeller Foundations in their countersuits and subpoenas.  XOM is now publicizing the Rockefeller conspiracy angle to discredit its accusers.


----------



## begreen (Nov 24, 2016)

Rockefeller rebuttal
https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/12/08/the-rockefeller-family-fund-vs-exxon/


----------



## woodgeek (Nov 26, 2016)

Texas judges forces MA and NY AGs to appear in court, to be questioned by XOM lawyers...

The decision was considered 'unprecedented'...state AGs subpoena'd to testify about investigations in progress, in a different state.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...te-judge-issues-unprecedented-a-g-questioning


----------



## vinny11950 (Dec 13, 2016)

Good times for Exxon now.


----------



## jatoxico (Dec 13, 2016)

Let's see if the Senate confirms him.


----------



## woodgeek (Dec 13, 2016)

they will....its kabuki.  the last person not appointed was in 1987.


----------



## jatoxico (Dec 13, 2016)

They may be looking to assert their authority. Not limited to the current pres-elect but presidential power has been out of control in the last 20yrs or so. Adams et al must be turning in their graves.


----------



## begreen (Dec 19, 2016)

Heading into 110% AshCan territory. Closing thread. Thanks to all that kept it objective for this long.


----------



## BrotherBart (Dec 19, 2016)

I went one step farther BG. And blew away the post that just pissed me off. Yeah, I know. Power mad moderator.


----------

