Hooray for Exxon for fighting back against the true harassers! The Socialist US cities and states that launch frivolous lawsuits are responsible for driving up the price of energy by legal expenses incurred by Big Oil, etc. to fight the suits.
Lawyers involved in frivolous lawsuits against Big Oil are the real ‘intimidators’. But the liberal mainstream media will never point that out. Think about this point; would lawyers on Exxon’s team launch this countersuit action without great forethought?
I hope this issue one day reaches the SCOTUS for a final ruling. It seems likely to be a 6-3 ruling in favor of big oil companies over Socialists.
To those inclined to automatically down vote any comments by conservatives, who don’t have the courage and/or facts to post a rebuttal, please read the entire article and focus on the discussion of these three people: Donziger, Lahav (espec. her employer), and Pawa.
If you think there is a bias in my selection of those names, review the comments by Erichson and Kelly, in the same paragraph of the article.
“and focus on the discussion of these three people…” You do not get to dictate what is an acceptable comment or sole topic of debate here. Freedom of speech and all, ya know?
The lawsuit seems reasonable if Exxon intentionally covered up information they knew could hurt them had the truth been known publicly. However, if they didn’t cover anything up, and they can prove they’re being conspired against, I feel they’re totally justified in taking the action(s) discussed in this article.
I did not DICTATE anything. Another Straw Man Argument. Nothing in my post prevented any freedom of speech, which, BTW, is NOT guaranteed on IJ, a private website. Read the US Constitution for an explanation.
You and I do NOT know of intent by Exxon. If James Comey were the sole determinant of their ‘intent’, as he was in the FBI investigation of Hillary (the conclusion of which was drafted BEFORE the investigation ended, LOL), then Exxon might be in deep doo-doo, depending on Comey’s relationship with Big Oil or Exxxon execs. Isn’t Justice and Truth a fickle thing these days?
Faulty Comparison trying to relate Exxon and Comey, so I won’t comment on that.
“You and I do NOT know of intent by Exxon” Obviously we don’t, but their intent (if there was any) is actually irrelevant.
***If*** they intentionally covered up information and that caused them to defraud shareholders and consumers, even if the cover up was solely for altruistic and moral reasons, the intent is immaterial to the suit because they ended up defrauding shareholders and customers.
Another liberal conspiracy just like Russian Collusion by RNC.
Exxon covering “something” up is a liberal accusation at this stage.
THAT is all.
If it was covered up, how do you know?
Exxon can litigate with cities and States if necessary.
California can continue to allow illegal immigrants to invade the State. Eventually, as proven by crime statistics, the crime will overload the police and “YOU” California legal residents will come running to the Federal govt for money and help.
But, this is YOUR own doing. Violating Federal Immigration law because you want ILLEGAL VOTES
Did i miss the part of your rant where you actually replied to something i wrote?
February 15, 2018 at 1:00 pm
Tax Cuts 4 PolaRich Bears says:
Hot debate. What do you think?
16
10
I’ll wait for the legal system to sort this mess out. I expect it will take a long time, resulting in plenty of money for the attorneys…. on BOTH sides.
The point I made in my first post is the obstructionist tactics by plaintiffs against Big Oil are referred to as ‘combative’ by the Liberal Media when Big Oil fights back, but those same tactics are not referred to as ‘combative’ when used by liberal lawyer pools fighting Big Oil.
I hope when CA does its SEC filings for it’s municipal and GO bonds that it discloses to investors what it considers to be facts about the destruction of shorelines and local environment and impending doom.
Let me see if I’m getting this right. Exxon is attempting to intimidate the multiple AGs who wield the collective power of the government of several States. Seriously?!? That’s all they’ve got?!?
That’s right. Exxon, made up of free American citizens, is fighting back against the abusive use of power by government employees for the bizarre political purpose of advancing their careers on the false premise of somehow protecting the planet with lawsuits.
More climate nonsense which exposes itself more and more every day to be a vast fraud fueled by government handouts to compromised “scientists”. Just wait until the money train runs out and they all change their tunes. The greatest lie ever told.
Benjamin, there is one poster on this site that believes that Connecticut could be hit by an Atlantic born Tsunami even though Long Island protects its shores. By the way, Tsunami’s are not man’s fault.
Hey — you’re talking about me! And you’re right — I still sincerely believe that estuaries are influenced by marine activity such as tides, waves and the influx of saline water.
Now, I never said Tsunami’s are man’s fault and I never said one could form IN an estuary. But trying to argue that an estuary will provide CT 100% protection from a tsunami is just false.
DNCs Coll(F)usion GPShip Strzok an IceberGowdy says:
Like or Dislike:
1
4
@Rosenblatt; I’ve visited CT shorelines in the summer several times over my life, and can tell you that a few ripples would be caused by a tsunami wave entering from the east side of LI, then expanding westward toward the New Haven shore. Maybe a 6″ increase in the waves. Nutmeggers are now filling sandbags because of YOUR FALSE ALARM post. Who’s gonna tell ’em to stop and use their sand for sand castles and sand bags for carrying home fresh seafood? After all, some of them work in Hartford, in insurance cos. that haven’t yet left the state; e.g. Aetna.
Did you visit during a tsunami? Or are you just giving your opinion on if this could happen? History is on the side of Rosenblatt on here. I do believe that it is unlikely to happen, but it is possible.
Took me a few minutes to reply and I was 3 minutes too late to see your comment before I posted. Thanks. I guess an anecdotal experience holds more weight to him than the fat that I cited actual events to support my argument.
February 16, 2018 at 3:55 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
*fact
February 16, 2018 at 3:52 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
3
0
Yogi – your anecdotal argument doesn’t prove anything. Especially since it was obviously much more than “a few ripples” that hit the southern CT shore when Hurricane Diane, Gloria and Sandy came through the area.
Maureen Long, Assistant Professor of Geology at Yale: So the first thing to keep in mind is that the situation is different here on the east coast of the US. So the Atlantic basin in contrast to the Pacific basin, we are not surrounded by a subduction zones here. So a subduction zone is a particular plate techtonic setting where you have one plate kind of diving down under another plate. This is where you get the kinds of large shallow earthquakes that can trigger tsunamis. And as we’ve said, the risk is not zero but it’s quite low…it shouldn’t keep people up at night here in Connecticut.”
Here is a professional on the issue, while it is unlikely it is not zero. Please stop spouting off your opinion as if it was an experts opinion.
But why are we hating on the more educated in our society? The people trying to look into the future more than most of us on here can. I understand that not everyone here accepts this, but there is a lot of data that backs up that our climate is changing. I do not care if you agree with the negative and positive implications of climate change, but it is unwise to pass it off as fraud.
There are several questions surrounding Climate Change and the simpletons in the discussion take one issue and conflate it with all. Is the climate chaning? Of course, and it always has. Is part of the change natural? Of course, no scientist disputes this. And so why would we want to mess with the natural part?
Is there uncertainty over the other questions? How much man contributes to the warming? How bad any damage might be? When the damage might occur? If we can even do much about it anyway? Yes, great uncertainty.
But the media and the left have largely led the “97% of scientists”, “Settled Science” nonsense for years. That 97% of scientists disagree on most of the questions I listed, but never mind that subtlety when you talk to a Climate Zealot.
Did you see the news in the Washington Post? Nearly every Western country plus Japan are going to fail to meet their goals that they recently agreed to in the Paris Climate Acord.
Trump’s a genius: committing to goals that are far greater than any other country’s goals when no one is going to honor their commitments anyway is stupid and won’t do anything to Save the Planet.
Craig – are you aware the Paris Climate Accord is a toothless agreement? That it *specifically states* there are NO PENALTIES and NO SANCTIONS that are to be levied against those who fail to meet their self-made commitments?
Please help me understand: what EXACTLY did we save in ACTUAL DOLLARS by pulling out of the agreement?
I argue that if we stayed in but didn’t meet our goals, or if Trump pulled us out, that we end up with the same net financial impact … … … $00.00.
If there was no cost to energy restrictions, no cost to shifting from low-cost fossil fuels to high-cost renewable energy, if there was no cost to subsidizing non-competitive wind and solar, then there would be no need for a Paris Climate Accord now, would there?
Cmon, man. Think. Read the Washington Post article. Countries like India are dramatically increasing coal production because it is cheaper.
Glorious Germany will fail to meet its commitment. Why? Because the Germans are tired of artificially high energy costs for solar and wind when natural gas is so cheap. (Have you heard that Germans have a word for sleeping in the cold one night per week to save on energy costs?)
I agree there are costs when attempting to move from existing processes to new ones, such as is the case here with energy.
Do you disagree that the Paris Accord *specifically states* there are NO PENALTIES and NO SANCTIONS to be levied should countries fail to meet (or even fail to make any attempt to meet) their commitment?
Hooray for Exxon for fighting back against the true harassers! The Socialist US cities and states that launch frivolous lawsuits are responsible for driving up the price of energy by legal expenses incurred by Big Oil, etc. to fight the suits.
Lawyers involved in frivolous lawsuits against Big Oil are the real ‘intimidators’. But the liberal mainstream media will never point that out. Think about this point; would lawyers on Exxon’s team launch this countersuit action without great forethought?
I hope this issue one day reaches the SCOTUS for a final ruling. It seems likely to be a 6-3 ruling in favor of big oil companies over Socialists.
To those inclined to automatically down vote any comments by conservatives, who don’t have the courage and/or facts to post a rebuttal, please read the entire article and focus on the discussion of these three people: Donziger, Lahav (espec. her employer), and Pawa.
If you think there is a bias in my selection of those names, review the comments by Erichson and Kelly, in the same paragraph of the article.
“and focus on the discussion of these three people…” You do not get to dictate what is an acceptable comment or sole topic of debate here. Freedom of speech and all, ya know?
The lawsuit seems reasonable if Exxon intentionally covered up information they knew could hurt them had the truth been known publicly. However, if they didn’t cover anything up, and they can prove they’re being conspired against, I feel they’re totally justified in taking the action(s) discussed in this article.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Faulty Comparison trying to relate Exxon and Comey, so I won’t comment on that.
“You and I do NOT know of intent by Exxon” Obviously we don’t, but their intent (if there was any) is actually irrelevant.
***If*** they intentionally covered up information and that caused them to defraud shareholders and consumers, even if the cover up was solely for altruistic and moral reasons, the intent is immaterial to the suit because they ended up defrauding shareholders and customers.
Another liberal conspiracy just like Russian Collusion by RNC.
Exxon covering “something” up is a liberal accusation at this stage.
THAT is all.
If it was covered up, how do you know?
Exxon can litigate with cities and States if necessary.
California can continue to allow illegal immigrants to invade the State. Eventually, as proven by crime statistics, the crime will overload the police and “YOU” California legal residents will come running to the Federal govt for money and help.
But, this is YOUR own doing. Violating Federal Immigration law because you want ILLEGAL VOTES
Did i miss the part of your rant where you actually replied to something i wrote?
I’ll wait for the legal system to sort this mess out. I expect it will take a long time, resulting in plenty of money for the attorneys…. on BOTH sides.
The point I made in my first post is the obstructionist tactics by plaintiffs against Big Oil are referred to as ‘combative’ by the Liberal Media when Big Oil fights back, but those same tactics are not referred to as ‘combative’ when used by liberal lawyer pools fighting Big Oil.
I hope when CA does its SEC filings for it’s municipal and GO bonds that it discloses to investors what it considers to be facts about the destruction of shorelines and local environment and impending doom.
Not only driving up the price of oil, but some or several insurance companies will be putting out millions if they lose.
Which, in turn, means insured risks in that line of business are going to pay.
Let me see if I’m getting this right. Exxon is attempting to intimidate the multiple AGs who wield the collective power of the government of several States. Seriously?!? That’s all they’ve got?!?
That’s right. Exxon, made up of free American citizens, is fighting back against the abusive use of power by government employees for the bizarre political purpose of advancing their careers on the false premise of somehow protecting the planet with lawsuits.
Go EXXON!
oil imports account for roughly 25% of our consumption. i do not think you understand what “independent” actually means
Dave, that’s plenty. Wait and see.
More climate nonsense which exposes itself more and more every day to be a vast fraud fueled by government handouts to compromised “scientists”. Just wait until the money train runs out and they all change their tunes. The greatest lie ever told.
commenting only to commend you on your username since i totally disagree with everything you posted
Benjamin, there is one poster on this site that believes that Connecticut could be hit by an Atlantic born Tsunami even though Long Island protects its shores. By the way, Tsunami’s are not man’s fault.
Hey — you’re talking about me! And you’re right — I still sincerely believe that estuaries are influenced by marine activity such as tides, waves and the influx of saline water.
Now, I never said Tsunami’s are man’s fault and I never said one could form IN an estuary. But trying to argue that an estuary will provide CT 100% protection from a tsunami is just false.
Hurricane Diane (1955)
Hurricane Gloria (1985)
Hurricane Sandy (2012)
But I don’t expect to change your mind here, Agent. After all, “you ain’t gonna learn what you don’t want to know”
@Rosenblatt; I’ve visited CT shorelines in the summer several times over my life, and can tell you that a few ripples would be caused by a tsunami wave entering from the east side of LI, then expanding westward toward the New Haven shore. Maybe a 6″ increase in the waves. Nutmeggers are now filling sandbags because of YOUR FALSE ALARM post. Who’s gonna tell ’em to stop and use their sand for sand castles and sand bags for carrying home fresh seafood? After all, some of them work in Hartford, in insurance cos. that haven’t yet left the state; e.g. Aetna.
Did you visit during a tsunami? Or are you just giving your opinion on if this could happen? History is on the side of Rosenblatt on here. I do believe that it is unlikely to happen, but it is possible.
Took me a few minutes to reply and I was 3 minutes too late to see your comment before I posted. Thanks. I guess an anecdotal experience holds more weight to him than the fat that I cited actual events to support my argument.
*fact
Yogi – your anecdotal argument doesn’t prove anything. Especially since it was obviously much more than “a few ripples” that hit the southern CT shore when Hurricane Diane, Gloria and Sandy came through the area.
Hurricane Diane (1955)
Hurricane Gloria (1985)
Hurricane Sandy (2012)
Maureen Long, Assistant Professor of Geology at Yale: So the first thing to keep in mind is that the situation is different here on the east coast of the US. So the Atlantic basin in contrast to the Pacific basin, we are not surrounded by a subduction zones here. So a subduction zone is a particular plate techtonic setting where you have one plate kind of diving down under another plate. This is where you get the kinds of large shallow earthquakes that can trigger tsunamis. And as we’ve said, the risk is not zero but it’s quite low…it shouldn’t keep people up at night here in Connecticut.”
Here is a professional on the issue, while it is unlikely it is not zero. Please stop spouting off your opinion as if it was an experts opinion.
Yes agent, but someone is going to sue somebody. Its probably Warren Buffets fault cause he has the deepest pockets.
But why are we hating on the more educated in our society? The people trying to look into the future more than most of us on here can. I understand that not everyone here accepts this, but there is a lot of data that backs up that our climate is changing. I do not care if you agree with the negative and positive implications of climate change, but it is unwise to pass it off as fraud.
I also used hating due to the fact that you put scientists in quotation marks.
There are several questions surrounding Climate Change and the simpletons in the discussion take one issue and conflate it with all. Is the climate chaning? Of course, and it always has. Is part of the change natural? Of course, no scientist disputes this. And so why would we want to mess with the natural part?
Is there uncertainty over the other questions? How much man contributes to the warming? How bad any damage might be? When the damage might occur? If we can even do much about it anyway? Yes, great uncertainty.
But the media and the left have largely led the “97% of scientists”, “Settled Science” nonsense for years. That 97% of scientists disagree on most of the questions I listed, but never mind that subtlety when you talk to a Climate Zealot.
Did you see the news in the Washington Post? Nearly every Western country plus Japan are going to fail to meet their goals that they recently agreed to in the Paris Climate Acord.
Trump’s a genius: committing to goals that are far greater than any other country’s goals when no one is going to honor their commitments anyway is stupid and won’t do anything to Save the Planet.
Help Al Gore! Save us from ourselves!
Craig – are you aware the Paris Climate Accord is a toothless agreement? That it *specifically states* there are NO PENALTIES and NO SANCTIONS that are to be levied against those who fail to meet their self-made commitments?
Please help me understand: what EXACTLY did we save in ACTUAL DOLLARS by pulling out of the agreement?
I argue that if we stayed in but didn’t meet our goals, or if Trump pulled us out, that we end up with the same net financial impact … … … $00.00.
If there was no cost to energy restrictions, no cost to shifting from low-cost fossil fuels to high-cost renewable energy, if there was no cost to subsidizing non-competitive wind and solar, then there would be no need for a Paris Climate Accord now, would there?
Cmon, man. Think. Read the Washington Post article. Countries like India are dramatically increasing coal production because it is cheaper.
Glorious Germany will fail to meet its commitment. Why? Because the Germans are tired of artificially high energy costs for solar and wind when natural gas is so cheap. (Have you heard that Germans have a word for sleeping in the cold one night per week to save on energy costs?)
I agree there are costs when attempting to move from existing processes to new ones, such as is the case here with energy.
Do you disagree that the Paris Accord *specifically states* there are NO PENALTIES and NO SANCTIONS to be levied should countries fail to meet (or even fail to make any attempt to meet) their commitment?
No. That is correct. And it is the biggest reason to get out. If no one is going to meet their obligations, why take it seriously?
After all, the Agreement was more punishing to our Middle Class in terms of committing to higher energy costs than it was for other countries.
If Green Zealots were serious, they would walk the walk. They would turn off their air conditioning.
But it is all talk. No one really believes the doomsayers.
Who are you to lecture anyone on this subject Rosenblatt. You don’t even know the difference between and island and an estuary.