Well Bam, There it Is: Exxon Mobil Investigated by NY Attorney General

[AFTiger 282]

Well Bam, There it Is: Exxon Mobil Investigated by NY Attorney General

November 6th, 2015

I suppose this was inevitable, and Exxon Mobil probably expected it as well.

According to the Justin Gillis NYT story, the New York attorney general’s “investigation focuses on whether statements the company made to investors about climate risks as recently as this year were consistent with the company’s own long-running scientific research.”

The thing that astounds me about this is, as far as I know, Exxon Mobil “scientific research” would not have uncovered anything that was not already widelyhypothesized (not “known”) by the scientific community, Al Gore, Greenpeace, school teachers, Hollywood actors, your 8 yr old son, et al.

How one compares a tobacco company cover-up of evidence that smoking kills millions of people, to human-caused climate change, which cannot be demonstrated to have occurred let alone cause even one death (or even inconvience) is beyond me.

But then, we live in a brave new world, don’t we?

More: http://www.drroyspencer.com/

[AURaptor 1,122]

Falls right in line w/ Hillary's progressive mantra... you don't change hearts, you change laws

And you use BIG GOVT to bully anyone who dares to resist your policy.

[homersapien 11,368]

I don't understand the problem here. Deliberately lying to your shareholders is a crime. Who would think otherwise?

[AFTiger 282]

I don't understand the problem here. Deliberately lying to your shareholders is a crime. Who would think otherwise?

But lying to the American people is not!

[homersapien 11,368]

I don't understand the problem here. Deliberately lying to your shareholders is a crime. Who would think otherwise?

But lying to the American people is not!

Is not what? A statutory crime?

Generally speaking, that's pretty much correct. Although there are plenty of specific cases in which lying is illegal - such as testimony under oath.

Anyway, a corporation's management lying to their stockholders about potential risks is illegal as I understand it, as it should be.

[cptau 169]

Lying is always unethical, but usually legal.

Politicians make the laws about lying and they always make sure most of their lies stay legal.

[AFTiger 282]

Ok, now I understand Democrats. Lying is acceptable. So why are they so upset with Dr. Carson, who simply misunderstood his circumstances.

[homersapien 11,368]

Ok, now I understand Democrats. Lying is acceptable. So why are they so upset with Dr. Carson, who simply misunderstood his circumstances.

Who said anything about lying being acceptable?

The issue was the Exxon Mobile and potential violations of the law. I think you misunderstood why.

[AFTiger 282]

But Democrats have no problem with dishonest Democrat politicians.

[homersapien 11,368]

But Democrats have no problem with dishonest Democrat politicians.

That's a pretty pathetic attempt at changing the subject.

[autigeremt 6,602]

But Democrats have no problem with dishonest Democrat politicians.

That's a pretty pathetic attempt at changing the subject.

But accurate none the less.

[homersapien 11,368]

But Democrats have no problem with dishonest Democrat politicians.

That's a pretty pathetic attempt at changing the subject.

But accurate none the less.

Democrats - like Republicans - have no option in the matter. All politicians lie. No party has a monopoly on it.

[AFTiger 282]

The why do Democrats continue to elect and re-elect corrupt politicians?

[homersapien 11,368]

The why do Democrats continue to elect and re-elect corrupt politicians?

Because they are clearly better for the country that corrupt conservatives?

[autigeremt 6,602]

But Democrats have no problem with dishonest Democrat politicians.

That's a pretty pathetic attempt at changing the subject.

But accurate none the less.

Democrats - like Republicans - have no option in the matter. All politicians lie. No party has a monopoly on it.

But the media will tell you all you want to hear about the GOP lies. It takes monumental pressure to out a Democrat it seems (unless it's Fox News). lol

[homersapien 11,368]

But Democrats have no problem with dishonest Democrat politicians.

That's a pretty pathetic attempt at changing the subject.

But accurate none the less.

Democrats - like Republicans - have no option in the matter. All politicians lie. No party has a monopoly on it.

But the media will tell you all you want to hear about the GOP lies. It takes monumental pressure to out a Democrat it seems (unless it's Fox News). lol

BS. The media could care less about who they skewer. It's about $ to them.

Remember the Elizabeth Warren native american scandal?

[autigeremt 6,602]

But Democrats have no problem with dishonest Democrat politicians.

That's a pretty pathetic attempt at changing the subject.

But accurate none the less.

Democrats - like Republicans - have no option in the matter. All politicians lie. No party has a monopoly on it.

But the media will tell you all you want to hear about the GOP lies. It takes monumental pressure to out a Democrat it seems (unless it's Fox News). lol

BS. The media could care less about who they skewer. It's about $ to them.

Remember the Elizabeth Warren native american scandal?

Most people don't...and she wasn't running for President either. Besides....she.....never mind.

They have their bias.....no doubt!

[AFTiger 282]

The why do Democrats continue to elect and re-elect corrupt politicians?

Because they are clearly better for the country that corrupt conservatives?

The most overused dodge, everybody does it.

[homersapien 11,368]

The why do Democrats continue to elect and re-elect corrupt politicians?

Because they are clearly better for the country that corrupt conservatives?

The most overused dodge, everybody does it.

Pretty much.

BTW, do you now understand why NY is looking to prosecute Exxon Mobile?

[AFTiger 282]

“investigation focuses on whether statements the company made to investors about climate risks as recently as this year were consistent with the company’s own long-running scientific research.”

Witch hunt

Exxon Mobil “scientific research” would not have uncovered anything that was not already widely hypothesized (not “known”) by the scientific community, Al Gore, Greenpeace, school teachers, Hollywood actors, your 8 yr old son, et al.

[homersapien 11,368]

“investigation focuses on whether statements the company made to investors about climate risks as recently as this year were consistent with the company’s own long-running scientific research.”

Witch hunt

Exxon Mobil “scientific research” would not have uncovered anything that was not already widely hypothesized (not “known”) by the scientific community, Al Gore, Greenpeace, school teachers, Hollywood actors, your 8 yr old son, et al.

I see you still don't get it huh?

This is about the legal requirement of full disclosure of known possible risk factors to shareholders. Apparently, they decided to at least ignore - if not refute - their own science. That doesn't sound like full and honest disclosure to me.

[AFTiger 282]

That is BS and you know it.

[homersapien 11,368]

That is BS and you know it.

What exactly, is BS?

The fact they are being investigated? The basis of said investigation? The fact Mobile did their own research? The fact they didn't disclose their findings as a potential risk factor?