Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Climate Suits against Big Oil face fundamental problem
 Reply to topic
Previous :: Next Topic
Author Message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostWed Feb 21, 2018 10:19 am 
The claimants arguing big oil needs to have the pants sued off them for climate change because of what they 'know' will happen to their cities...haven't been relating that knowledge of certain disaster when selling bonds to raise money. So their bond sales have been fraudulent by not disclosing risks, or their lawsuit is fraudulent because they knew the risks weren't real as evidenced by their bond sales.
Quote:
"Notwithstanding their claims of imminent, allegedly near-certain harm, none of the municipalities disclosed to investors such risks in their respective bond offerings, which collectively netted over $8 billion for these local governments over the last 27 years," the petition said. "To the contrary, some of the disclosures affirmatively denied any ability to measure those risks; the others virtually ignored them."
Cross examination is going to be brutal

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Damian
Member
Member


Joined: 18 Dec 2001
Posts: 3260 | TRs | Pics
Damian
Member
PostWed Feb 21, 2018 1:53 pm 
Oh man this is going be boring. lol.gif Why aren't you out in your shop where you belong? You should be getting ready for the Spring Slopener.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostWed Feb 21, 2018 2:59 pm 
Because I've been keeping an eye developments in these cases of legal idiocy. I'm going to enjoy reading about the song and dance put on by folks trying to testify they're owed damages for certain harm they'll sue over but.... they don't bother to tell bond buyers about. Pure gold, that.

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Gregory
Member
Member


Joined: 08 Mar 2014
Posts: 386 | TRs | Pics
Gregory
Member
PostFri Feb 23, 2018 6:11 am 
I put my money on a bought off judge.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
thunderhead
Member
Member


Joined: 14 Oct 2015
Posts: 1511 | TRs | Pics
thunderhead
Member
PostFri Feb 23, 2018 9:21 am 
good like trying to claim future damages that have not happened yet... and may never happen.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostWed Mar 21, 2018 5:49 pm 
Quote:
A federal judge overseeing a lawsuit dismissed a core section plaintiffs brought in the case — oil companies conspired to cover up global warming science. San Francisco and Oakland filed suit against five major companies, including Exxon and Chevron, demanding money for damages global warming allegedly caused. A core component of their suit is fossil fuel companies “engaged in a large-scale, sophisticated advertising and public relations campaign” to promote fossil fuels while they “knew” their products would contribute to “dangerous global warming.” The cities’ suits against oil companies, however, do not show an industry conspiracy to suppress climate science from the public, U.S. District Judge William Alsup said, according to journalists who attended the hearing. Alsup said plaintiffs “shows nothing of the sort” regarding some sort of conspiracy against science, Conservative journalist Phelim McAleer tweeted.
Reality wins in CA. I'd better run and buy a lottery ticket, hell is freezing over.

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostTue Mar 27, 2018 12:52 pm 
Judge in #ExxonKnew case accepts amicus brief exposing climatology’s grave error
Quote:
Official climatology’s error is grave. It has hitherto been assumed that, while a change in temperature, such as the small warming from adding the non-condensing greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, can induce a feedback response, the Earth’s far larger emission temperature somehow cannot. The most significant objection to our argument came from Roy Spencer, who said official climatology defines a temperature feedback as an extra forcing induced by a change in temperature, but not by the original temperature itself. That is indeed the definition. But merely because official climatology says white is black, we should not be too hasty in bidding farewell to white. With respect, the question is not whether official climatology defines feedbacks in such a way as to exclude from the account the large feedback response to the Earth’s emission temperature, but whether in reality the emission temperature actually induces that large feedback response.

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostTue Mar 27, 2018 5:56 pm 
read the proceedings if you like, caution, linked PDF

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
   All times are GMT - 8 Hours
 Reply to topic
Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Climate Suits against Big Oil face fundamental problem
  Happy Birthday speyguy, Bandanabraids!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum