• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Exxon ordered to turn over 40 years of climate change research

apdst said:
Why is a Federal judge involved?

Now, explain how Congress is abusing it's power.
Click to expand...

Good question....why is a Federal judge from Texas involved in a State's investigation?


See post # 175
 
Moot said:
Whut?

Read the OP.

Last week...not last year ...last week, a Superior court judge ordered Exxon to hand over more than four decades of the company's climate change research....


"....The court rejected Exxon's emergency motion to kill the demand from Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey, who is investigating allegations the company ignored internal scientific research going back to the 1970s....

In Wednesday's ruling, the Massachusetts court declined to put the proceeding on hold until the Texas court rules.

Exxon tried to kill the demand for documents by arguing the investigation is politically motivated. The company cited a March speech from Healey where she said, "We can all see today the troubling disconnect between what Exxon knew, what industry folks knew, and what the company and industry chose to share."

But the Massachusetts judge said the remarks are not evidence of "any actionable bias" and that it "seems logical" for the attorney general to inform the public about the basis of the investigation....

Exxon ordered to turn over 40 years of climate change research - Jan. 12, 2017​


Former acting general counsel to the House and law professor at the University of Baltimore, Charles Tiefer said the committee’s subpoenas exceeded its authority....

"...He testified that Congress has never in more than 200 years issued a subpoena to a state attorney general. Tiefer said that “fraud investigation is the legitimate bread and butter of state attorneys general” and that if ExxonMobil did, in fact, say one thing about climate change internally and another publicly, that was something that could be investigated.

As for discussions between environmental groups and the state attorneys general, Tiefer said any contacts the groups had fell well within their rights to association and for the environmental groups to urge government to take action...."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...7a4a412e93a_story.html?utm_term=.53a33fb038e6​


And that's where it stands.
Click to expand...

The federal court subpoena against the Massachusetts AG remains in force.
 
apdst said:
Congress isn't excercising judicial power, here.
Click to expand...

Then what does a State fraud investigation have to do with congress?
 
Jack Hays said:
The federal court subpoena against the Massachusetts AG remains in force.
Click to expand...

So does the State's investigation and the recent Superior court order.
 
Moot said:
Then what does a State fraud investigation have to do with congress?
Click to expand...

What do Exxon's private research documents have to with the Mass AG? Global warming isn't a thing. If Exxon wants to say it's bull****, then there's no law against Exxon saying it's bull****.

If the AG's of Mass and NY don't like the subpoenas, they have the right to sue the United States government to stop them.
 
apdst said:
What do Exxon's private research documents have to with the Mass AG? Global warming isn't a thing. If Exxon wants to say it's bull****, then there's no law against Exxon saying it's bull****.

If the AG's of Mass and NY don't like the subpoenas, they have the right to sue the United States government to stop them.
Click to expand...

If their research shows it's BS then why are they hiding it? Could it be that they knew it was true but lied all these years?
 
Manc Skipper said:
If their research shows it's BS then why are they hiding it? Could it be that they knew it was true but lied all these years?
Click to expand...

If Healey isn't conducting an illegal investigation, why isn't she obeying a congressional subpoena. BTW, refusing to obey a congressional subpoena is a crime.
 
apdst said:
First, you have to come up with valid science.
Click to expand...
I don't accept invalid science as science, so all science is valid.

That sounds kinda odd, but it's basically my take on scientific integrity. If you're willing to cut corners and skew results to reach a predetermined result, you aren't doing science, you're doing lies.
 
Manc Skipper said:
If their research shows it's BS then why are they hiding it? Could it be that they knew it was true but lied all these years?
Click to expand...

Actually I agree that what you say. That they probably had some findings that they did not want to disclose. My question though, is so what. Why did they have to share whatever they found through their privately paid for findings.
 
washunut said:
Actually I agree that what you say. That they probably had some findings that they did not want to disclose. My question though, is so what. Why did they have to share whatever they found through their privately paid for findings.
Click to expand...

Exxon published all their research.
 
Jack Hays said:
They published all their research.
Click to expand...

How do you know? Exxon knew that climate warming was happening and that burning fossil fuels were a problem while they were publicly denying it themselves. and funding denial.
 
Grand Mal said:
How do you know? Exxon knew that climate warming was happening and that burning fossil fuels were a problem while they were publicly denying it themselves. and funding denial.
Click to expand...

Because the research has been done.


The “Exxon Climate Papers” show what Exxon and climate science knew and shared

If they withheld or suppressed climate research from the public or shareholders, it is not apparent in these documents. Guest essay by Andy May New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman has accused ExxonMobil of lying to the public and investors about the risks of climate change according to the NY Times and has launched…

". . . I’ve reviewed the 22 internal documents from 1977 to 1989 made available by ExxonMobil here. I’ve also reviewed what I could find on 104 publications (most are peer-reviewed) with ExxonMobil personnel as authors or co-authors. For some of the peer-reviewed articles I only had an abstract and for some I could find the reference but no abstract or text without paying a fee. Below this short essay is an annotated bibliography of all 22 internal documents and 89 of the published papers. The documents are interesting reading, they fill in the history of modern climate science very well. Much of the current debate on climate change was being debated in the same way, and often with the same uncertainties, in 1977.
Between 1977 and the fifth IPCC report in 2013 ExxonMobil Corporate Research in New Jersey investigated the effect of increasing CO2 on climate. If they withheld or suppressed climate research from the public or shareholders, it is not apparent in these documents. Further, if they found any definitive evidence of an impending man-made climate catastrophe, I didn’t see it. The climate researchers at ExxonMobil participated in the second, third, fourth and fifth IPCC assessment reports making major contributions in mapping the carbon cycle and in climate modeling. They calculated the potential impact of man-made CO2 in several publications. They investigated methods of sequestering CO2 and adapting to climate change. They also investigated several potential biofuels. . . ."




 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom