Did ExxonMobil Lie About What It Knew About Climate Change?

What did the company know, and when did it know it?



New York State Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman issued subpoenas on Wednesday to oil giant ExxonMobil demanding that it turn over internal communications regarding what the company knew about the risks of climate change. Shades of Watergate: What did the company know, and when did it know it? The investigation by the grandstanding attorney general follows in the wake of a long-standing claim by some environmental activists that oil companies have sought to confuse the debate over climate change in the service of their profits.

On top of this, activists have been more recently pushing the notion of a "carbon bubble" stemming from the argument that in order to protect the climate most hydrocarbon assets will have to remained buried. As a consequence, companies that own those assets will become bankrupt. Maybe. But in its 2014 World Energy Outlook report, the International Energy Agency projects that global oil production will rise from 90 million barrels to 104 million barrels per day by 2040 and that fossil fuel use will increase overall by 37 percent.

In any case, Schneiderman is specifically seeking evidence that ExxonMobil knew, but failed to warn its shareholders, about climate risks to its assets.

In recent months, activists claimed to have uncovered "smoking gun" documents from ExxonMobil showing that the company did in fact know that emitting carbon dioxide by burning oil and natural gas was causing climate change. The activists cite a 1977 memo by Exxon scientist J.F. Black which summarizes:

What is considered the best presently available climate model for treating the Greenhouse Effect predicts that a doubling of the C02 concentration in the atmosphere would produce a mean temperature increase of about 2°C to 3°C over most of the earth. The model also predicts that the temperature increase near the poles may be two to three times this value.

Interestingly, this is about the temperature range for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 in the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report is 1.5°C to 4.5°C. The 1977 memo also notes the many uncertainties about the sources of CO2, the primitive state of climate models, and so forth.

ExxonMobil has made the early climate change memos cited in the recent reporting available to the public. The executives in the company were clearly aware that future climate change caused by burning fossil fuels could become a significant problem in the coming century. On the other hand, the internal reports do take into account important uncertainties about climate prognostication.

In a recent article, the Los Angeles Times makes much of the fact that in the early 1990s, ExxonMobil researchers and engineers were evaluating how global warming might effect the company's arctic operations. As the LA Times however reports one the lead engineers ultimately …

…did not recommend making investment decisions based on those scenarios, because he believed the science was still uncertain. However, he advised the company to consider and incorporate potential "negative outcomes," including a rise in the sea level, which could threaten onshore infrastructure; bigger waves, which could damage offshore drilling structures; and thawing permafrost, which could make the earth buckle and slide under buildings and pipelines.

Smoking gun? Not really. It would be surprising for executives and engineers not to evaluate all kinds of scenarios as they consider long term capital investments. And ExxonMobil researchers and executives were not alone in their uncertainty about the future trajectory of climate change. In 1992, the National Academy of Sciences issued a big report, Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming: Mitigation, Adaptation and the Science Base, that, among other things, noted:

Increases in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations probably will be followed by increases in average atmospheric temperature. We cannot predict how rapidly these changes will occur, how intense they will be for any given atmospheric concentration, or, in particular, what regional changes in temperature, precipitation, wind speed, and frost occurrence can be expected. So far, no large or rapid increases in the global average temperature have occurred, and there is no evidence yet of imminent rapid change. But if the higher GCM projections prove to be accurate, substantial responses would be needed, and the stresses on this planet and its inhabitants would be serious.

Over the decades, company executives did frequently point to uncertainties in the developing climate science. But this seems have changed after the IPCC issued its Fourth Assessment of climate science in 2006 which stated: 

Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.

After that report, for the first time (that I could find at least), the company's 2006 annual report noted the risks of climate change to its business:

Political and Legal Factors: The operations and earnings of the Corporation and its affiliates throughout the world have been, and may in the future be, affected from time to time in varying degree by political and legal factors including … laws and regulations related to environmental or energy security matters, including those addressing alternative energy sources and the risks of global climate change…

Is that enough to squelch Schneiderman's investigation? As the New York Times notes:

Whether Exxon Mobil began disclosing the business risks of climate change as soon as it understood them is likely to be a major focus of the New York case. The people with knowledge of the case said the attorney general's investigators were poring through the company's disclosure filings made since the 1970s, but were focusing in particular on recent statements to investors.

Exxon Mobil has been disclosing such risks in recent years, but whether those disclosures were sufficient has been a matter of public debate.

That is indeed the debate.

The bottom line: Schneiderman's investigation is likened to the litigation against Big Tobacco that did lie about the health dangers of smoking for decades. The result of that litigation is annual payments to the states totaling $206 billion dollars over 25 years. There is little doubt that Schneiderman is looking for an even bigger pay day from Big Oil.

For more background on how I came to change my mind about the possible dangers of man-made global warming see my 2006 article, "Confessions of an Alleged ExxonMobil Whore."

NEXT: Ben Carson Admits His Story About Being Awarded a Scholarship to West Point Isn't True

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “What did the company know, and when did it know it?”
    Nobody “knows” anything about climate change. It’s all guesswork.

    1. This much we know to be true, and that’s the fact that the “climate consensus in science” is a concerted fraud being perpetrated against the lives, liberties, and property of innocent human beings.

      “How can it be said about climate change that ‘it is almost entirely man’s fault’? When you read the scientific papers on which the IPCC reports are based, the predicted climate change results almost entirely from the release of carbon dioxide (CO2) into the air by our burning of fossils to power our civilization. But I have read several papers by Ph.D. Climate Skeptics that totally debunk the carbon dioxide greenhouse gas theory. And, as for the evidence, what is going on now is overwhelming evidence that CO2 is not a significant greenhouse gas. Consider this: there has been no significant atmospheric warming for 18 years despite a continued steady rise in the amount of (CO2) mankind is exhausting into the atmosphere from our burning of fossil fuels. The steady rise in CO2 is well documented. Think about that: the pause in temperature increases is rolling on despite the continuing steady increase in the level of CO2 in the air. So the basic theory that man is causing climate change by burning fossil fuels has failed to verify. Scientifically it is just plain dead.

      — John Coleman, 3 November 2014

  2. “In any case, Schneiderman is specifically seeking evidence that ExxonMobil knew, but failed to warn its shareholders, about climate risks to its assets.”

    There are zero climate risks to its assets. ZERO. The risk is from the heavy hand of government, and it looks like Schneiderman wants to make this a self fulfilling prophecy.

    1. Exactly.


      This is a huge contrast with Big Tobacco, who were accused of hiding health risks from customers.

      Do we seriously believe that the lefties have any sympathy for Exxon shareholders?

      1. They might not be aware of it, but if they’re government employees, their pensions depend on it.

        Or not, because the taxpayers will have to make up the difference.

      2. The one’s who are Exxon shareholders probably do.

    3. There are zero climate risks to its assets. ZERO. The risk is from the heavy hand of government, and it looks like Schneiderman wants to make this a self fulfilling prophecy.

      Right, but when it knew about the risk that the heavy hand of government might pose at some point in the future, did it make it known to the shareholders instantaneously and completely or did they progressively disclose information in a selective manner? HMMMM?!?!?

      1. Other than standard boilerplate language on disclosures, there’s no real way to quantify and convey that risk to shareholders.

        We have a full blown socialist nut who is a contender for the Democratic nomination for president. Should all publicly traded companies have to disclose that and the associated risks?

        1. I eagerly await them going after every solar and wind company that did not disclose the risks of the elimination of the WPT credit or solar tax subsidies.

          1. Every green-tech company on earth discloses the shit out of political risks, fwiw

            And oil companies already do so too; its the specific level and kind…which if it cant be measured, you can’t bother to disclose.

            It seems like the AG is aware that Exxon has probably done dozens of possible scenario models and expects one of them to verify his claims that they “knew something” and didn’t warn people. But stress-test modeling is just what any good company does. Sans demonstrable harm, there’s no case here as far as i can tell

    4. Consider, for just a moment, that the Hidden Agenda of both Scheiderman AND the folks who attacked Big Tobacco are the folks who’d benefit most by levying fines on ’em in order to help balance their respective budget deficits?

      Just wonderin’…. just wondering why no one else asks questions like that one.

  3. This is entirely the product of a green pressure group deciding to demonize Exxonmobil.


    So where do these strange ideas [lawfare against skeptics] come from?

    Step forward ‘Climate Accountability Institute’

    The Climate Accountability Institute (CAI) is a small front attempting to marry ‘climate concerns’ to environmentalism and tobacco prohibitionist tactics. But ‘small’ is a relative term in the climate activist world.

    In 2012 the CAI held a ‘workshop’ in La Jolla California. It was ‘conceived’ by Naomi Oreskes and others, and called ‘Establishing Accountability for Climate Change Damages: Lessons from Tobacco Control.’ Stanton Glantz, a prominent tobacco control activist scientist was present as were a clutch of lawyers, climate scientists, communication professionals, PR agency heads, bloggers and journalists.

    They released a report (pdf):

    1. Yep. I was just about to link that. This is an activist witchhunt.

      Are we still pretending that we have the rule of law in this country?

      I hope they tell them to shove the subpoena up their asses.

    2. Oh and BTW, I think this is the biggest scandal of the year.

      I’m outraged that the chief law enforcement officer of the State of New York is the one doing this.

    3. What is with people named Naomi?

      1. Having a name with more syllables than consonant drives you crazy?

        1. Remember, Naomi spelled backward is I Moan.

          1. Thank you, SIR!

          2. I chuckled

      2. Naorgi and Enihwi aren’t near as charming as names.

    4. Stanton Glantz, a prominent tobacco control activist scientist

      Which is it? Is he an activist, or a scientist? Because I don’t think you can really be both.

    5. I heard Exxon just stopped donating money to the Clinton campaign….

    6. True, and quite funny and coincidental that this follows closely on the heels of Exxon-Mobil withdrawing its annual support for the bogus “Clinton Foundation.” Hmmmmmmm!

    7. One important angle in that report is that the real aim of this subpoena is to get access to internal documents that may be more incriminating than those now known about and/or contain documents from other oil companies that indicate that they had guilty knowledge. This business about protecting investors is a pretext.

    8. Can you recognize an activist Playbook when you see one? They’re too transparent…

  4. Fuck these psychotic bastards who want to destroy the modern world.

  5. On top of this, activists have been more recently pushing the notion of a “carbon bubble” stemming from the argument that in order to protect the climate most hydrocarbon assets will have to remained buried. As a consequence, companies that own those assets will become bankrupt.

    My understanding is that public companies are required to report the various ways in which their assets could be endangered, and that includes consequences of possible public policies. So I would imagine that in some sense ExxonMobil should have been reporting their assets were in danger from potential state actions, right? Do they not report that?

    1. Maybe that’s just a given?

      1. I would have been pretty surprised if not.

        I really don’t get what you could complain about in that case.

    2. What potential state actions are you referring to?

      1. Something that would do this:

        On top of this, activists have been more recently pushing the notion of a “carbon bubble” stemming from the argument that in order to protect the climate most hydrocarbon assets will have to remained buried. As a consequence, companies that own those assets will become bankrupt.

        1. So is that a state action or something activists have been pushing?

          There is a difference.

          1. It’s a potential one.

            1. What is a potential one? That we will outlaw most hydrocarbons?

              1. No, that the state would make some share of their assets inaccessible or worthless. Among many other things it could do.

                What exactly is your point?

                1. My point is that the state has not even considered making some or any of Exxons assets inaccessible or worthless, not even potentially, so the idea that they are “lying” about anything is just dumb.

                  1. Of course it’s dumb. That’s why I’m bitching about it.

              2. Yes. That due to “climate change”, sometime in the future, Exxon Mobile will be outlawed from extracting hydrocarbons, rendering the assets worthless.

                Activists are pushing the state to do this right now, both legislatively and through the tort system. See Tarran’s link below.

                1. What legislation is currently in process that would outlaw even some hydrocarbons?

                  1. Legislation? None. That would be the kiss of death for any elected politicians right now. New York City would need to be underwater for that to happen.

                    However, I do hear that there are some administrative problems with a certain pipeline, though.

        2. Actually, the example given in the NYT piece was this stuff… which the same prosecutors are now going after coal companies for “Failing to inform investors of how badly they should have known Obama was going to stick it to them”

          Its sort of a bizarre argument = that the government is both arbitrarily creating the risks to businesses…as well as punishing the businesses for failing to read the Government’s mind about “how bad” they planned to fuck them.

          but that’s the general angle which is being pursued. The problem is that for oil there is no single, clear, discrete legislative risk.. but rather a raft of various things.

          re: this

          “For several years, advocacy groups with expertise in financial analysis have been warning that fossil fuel companies might be overvalued in the stock market, since the need to limit climate change might require that much of their coal, oil and natural gas be left in the ground.

          …i think is a bit silly.

          A simpler argument is simply that the likelihood of broad array of regulations on fossil fuels should probably be considered when applying a discount rate to forward earnings. While “oil still in the ground” is not considered an asset until it is extracted/produced… companies still report their untapped reserves and those are also considered in considering a company’s forward earnings potential.

    3. “My understanding is that public companies are required to report the various ways in which their assets could be endangered, and that includes consequences of possible public policies.”

      yes. I mentioned some details on this

      There are 2 issues = the public communications one, and the ‘disclosing risks to investors’ one.

      On the latter – Public companies have to disclose material risks in filings. informing investors of emerging risks should be timely and consistent with their internal assessments. If legislation which could adversely affect their business, etc. etc.

      However the problem with these kinds of cases is that they generally require the failure to disclose to have caused “measurable harm” (presumably in the form of investor losses) There also has to be some clarity on the kind of risk and its scale/impact.

      On the former… its fuzzier. Its closer to the way Tobacco companies were tried for “knowingly misleading consumers”, pumping science they knew to be ‘false’. However.. again – the problem is that it would seem hard to prove any collective ‘harm’ resulted, or that the “misleading science” is actually contradicting any ‘consensus’ view – which may or may not exist.

      I suspect the idea here is that its a political prosecution and the intent will be to jawbone them into making concessions of some kind to avoid endless persecution.

      1. Sorry – my earlier comment was here

  6. Under what possible theory of law is arguing for your side of a debate a crime? Let’s say, just for the sake of argument, that there was a climatologist employed by Exxon who opined that global warming was a serious issue and burning oil was contributing to the problem. And?

    Even if he’s right about his opinion, does that mean that everyone at the company has to agree with him, or it is a crime? Also, even if anthropogenic global warming is going to change the climate by the amounts bandied about by the alarmists, what is the result? We know the globe was warmer than it is projected to get prior to the most recent ice age (the one we are still warming from). Local climates will change, but are we sure the net is negative? Are we sure about anything?

    Or is there only uncertainty because “big oil” has muddied the water. Somehow I doubt that. There hasn’t been a remotely viable alternative to oil in transportation until the last several years, and even now it is not mature enough to see widespread adoption. So what possible theory can he advance as to the harm caused (or benefit to Exxon) from “muddying the waters” of the debate? It is not like they would sell one less drop of gasoline if they left the global warming debate to others. Not any time soon, anyway.

    1. Under what possible theory of law is arguing for your side of a debate a crime?

      A tyrannical one. Environmentalists aren’t just enemies of the economical side of the modern world.

    2. Thoughtcrime.

  7. Could you give us a clue as to what alleged legal violation the NY AG is pursuing here?

    Is it fraud? If so, on who? And what are the damages supposed to be?

    1. Some kind of offense against shareholders.

      1. So of course the State of New York will settle for something in the 9-10 figure range and the shareholders will get nothing.


        1. The shareholders will get protection. Duh.

        2. And then the other states will start licking their chops.

      2. Because Exxon should be able to predict what government officials are going to do, because they control the government, because Citizens United….

        I think I see the logic.

        1. they being Exxon

      3. Some kind of offense against shareholders.

        What kind of offense against shareholders?

        something Nikki something worst.

        1. Hey, I answered half of your question!

    2. We live in an era where almost everything is against the law if you look at it the ‘right’ way.

      It is just a matter of finding which law to apply.

    3. Looks like its the Martin Act, which is a state securities law. If I were an Exxon shareholder, I’d be feeling very “protected” right now.

      1. I’m kinda hoping for chapter and verse, really.

      2. They’re down about 3% from midweek, which erased about $10 billion in wealth. I’m sure the shareholders are thrilled.

    4. Who here wants to bet the State of NY is invested in ExxonMobil financial instruments?

  8. Are we believing that lies are bad now? This is so confusing even Kant would get a headache.

    1. The pharse “Exxon’s basilisk” springs to mind.

      1. It was the Exxon Valdez!

  9. In a recent article, the Los Angeles Times makes much of the fact that in the early 1990s, ExxonMobil researchers and engineers were evaluating how global warming might effect the company’s arctic operations.

    I believe the word your looking for hear is “affect.”

    (And yes, the misspellings in that sentence were deliberate.)

  10. I suspect one that will be used is Exxon mobile’s investment in land that would only become viable and profitable for drilling if in fact global warming did occur

    This will be argued as proof that they knew global warming was happening/would continue

    Except its not proof

    Assuming arguendo that happened, From game theory, it would make sense to invest in certain land that would only be economically viable if global warming occurred even if they figured 5% chance global warming was in fact occurring

    This is similar to the fact that even if I was completely confident another player held pocket aces and I held speculative rags, assuming I was getting the right price due to implied odds, reverse implied Odds, pot odds etc it would still make sense to call, to invest in a pot with a X% (for small X) chance of winning, if my likely bounty was substantially large eg 20% chance of winning a pot equal to 12 times my investment

    Corporations make speculative investments like this all the time

    Drug companies do it with every drug they research

    Any individual drug has a tiny chance of being profitable

    But the windfall from the big winners outweighs the many smaller losses

    traders weigh risk like this all the time. Some of the best traders only have 1/5 trades make money, but the 20% that do win big enough to offset the 80% where they cut their losses

    it should take more than the investment in properties that are only viable given a thaw

    1. You can’t spell “The artist known Dunphy” without “we shit on truth”.

    2. Believing Global Warming will happen is very different from believing human CO2 is the culprit. And also different from believing that human oil consumption would be reduced.

    3. Christ, man. Do your DRs look like a 3rd grader wrote them too?

  11. Related:

    “Killing Keystone XL, Obama says pipeline not in US interests”
    From the comments:
    “noescuses Rank 183
    Leave that dirty oil in the ground.”

    Right, that oil isn’t gonna get burned since Obo hopes to buy votes from idiots like this.

    Given the Em-Dom issues, I’m ambivalent about the pipeline, but I’m sure Warren Buffett is counting his profits for supporting Obo. The oil *will* be burned or processed and it’ll be moved to do so on Buffett’s rails or somebody’s ships.

    1. And the president argued that an “infrastructure bill” would provide more than 30 times as many jobs as the pipeline, therefore, there’s no need for the pipeline. This sort of assumption that the chief executive should decide which business ventures are best is galling. Besides, the “infrastructure bill” is little more than pork. As is killing the pipeline, since it leaves a whole lot of oil–up t0 830,000barrels per day–to travel by train and truck. This is just cronyism.

      1. Besides which, it’s not an either/or. But lying never stopped Obo from flapping his jaws.

  12. So ExxonMobil’s models in 1970 were wrong. The leading experts in the field have agreed they were wrong. So their decision that their models had too much probability of being wrong to need to be disclosed to the public is right, because again their models from that time are demonstrably wrong.

    Furthermore, in 2006 when their internal reports tell them that the probability of the models being right is enough to disclose to the public they turn around and do so. When they begin to fear that the government is going to regulate against their interests they tell their investors.

    There is literally nothing here. Yet I’m still almost certain we’re going to see a prosecution and a huge payout to the state. Fuck New York and fuck the greens.

    1. Correct on all counts.

      1. Nikki and Illocust sitting in a tree.

    2. Hey, we all know that the peak oil doomsayers were wrong too. When do we get to sue them?

    3. Wow, so this is based on modeling that is almost thirty years old. So, the 2000’s models that, with a larger dataset and with exponential increases in computing power and are still inaccurate are to considered inferior to disco era modeling?

      1. Yep, apparently we are allowed to look at probabilities when talking about Dooms Day scenarios. It doesn’t matter if your study has a 99.99999999999% chance of being wrong. We need to feed a virgin to that volcano to prevent it from exploding.

    4. I don’t think there is going to be payout here. There is no shakedown really possible from a New York perspective; they have no sticks and no carrots vis-a-vis Exxon. And it would be far cheaper for Exxon to just shell out for the Bar Mitzvah all the way to the Supreme Court. Given the Supreme Court’s tendencies, we’re all fucking doomed when that happens. But it puts said doom off for many, many years.

      1. I’m worried about some back room pressure from EPA and others that ExxonMobil has to pay out or suddenly it will find all it’s toilets not in government compliance.

  13. Way to miss the real story, Reason:

    Hillary Clinton is calling for a federal investigation of ExxonMobil’s climate change activities just months after the company neglected to renew its sponsorship of the Clinton Global Initiative annual meeting.


    This has nothing to do with climate change. This is pure, bloody-knuckled retribution by the Clintons.

    1. She’s going to give the money back, right?

      God, she’s so fucking stupid. People are already accusing her of pay to play, and she thinks this is going to help her.

    2. I was reading that in the New York Times comments. I was also hearing about a corruption trial for a high level New York official was starting this week too. Apparently some distraction could be used.

      So many different reasons this could be going down and not one sounds good.

    3. OMG, whatevs! Obviously ExxonMobil didn’t renew it’s sponsorship because they knew the Clintons were on to their evil denier ways and they wanted preemptive retribution! Maybe if you weren’t so blinded by hatred for the earth you’d realize the Clintons are pure of heart and always on the side of justice. Plus, you’re afraid of a strong woman. /prog

  14. Capitalism is what got us into this mess in the first place. If all business was controlled by government, then our omniscient masters would have never allowed this to happen. It’s the profit motive that has caused all this damage. Government isn’t tainted with profit motive, so they would never have knowingly caused all this damage to the planet. Government is motivated by the greater good, not icky profits. But we can’t take down capitalism all at once. It’s got to be done little by little. But it will happen. Then we will all be one with Mother Gaia and live in perfect harmony. Just like the Native Americans did before the white man gave them guns.

    1. I give that a B+. Not enough spittle.

      1. I concur, needs more “KKKOCHTOPUS!!!111!!”

      2. And a little more gambolling

    2. The USSR and China were such good stewards of the natural world in the 20th century. Why couldn’t the capitalist pigs have learned something from them?

      1. We did. Notice how nasty THEIR ecospheres have become and how we’re racing to catch up?

  15. Every company’s 10k and 10q forms should include boilerplate to the effect that major risks to shareholders include the capriciousness of government at all levels and the court system that thinks it must pay attention to the fantasies of luddite cranks and charlatans.

  16. Of course, the problem with a “Big Tobacco” model is … that tobacco companies lied to their customers, who suffered direct – sometimes fatal – personal injury as a result.

    The argument here is that Exxon … didn’t emphasize uncertain climate model possibilities for lowered future value at the right time, thus potentially sort of possibly injuring shareholders?

    (Nevermind all the shareholders who bought low and sold high during that time, right? I guess it’s only the longest of long-term investors who are supposedly hurt somehow?

    The biggest irony being that, if this suit is somehow wildly successful, it will hurt shareholder value far more than the alleged lies.)

    1. yep, basically made the same point above.

      its hard to see how the govt is going to demonstrate “harm” in either the consumer communications angle… or in ‘missing’ investor disclosures.

      1. The harm will be in loss of value. Guess who will be creating that?

        1. Harm after the govt announces investigation generally isn’t considered the solution to a self-fulfilling prophesy.

          Recent losses in oil company shares have been due to concerns about *long term oversupply*. Trying to prove that investors were harmed by lack of “100year risk” prognostications will never fly.

    2. …except the tobacco companies didn’t lie. What they all said was “Smoking doesn’t cause cancer.” It DOESN’T. For the statement “Smoking causes cancer” to be true, everyone who ever smoked would get cancer and that’s FAR from true. In fact, today, less than 40% of Americans smoke tobacco, but the lung cancer rates are pretty close to identical with when 75% of Americans smoked. To any REASONABLE person, that would indicate that something other than tobacco smoke is causing lung cancer.

  17. If you ever wondered about just how much a looneytoon version of reality was being pushed by the envirotard/watermelon faction, this article does a good job of listing most of the BS talking points.

    Really, the UN as a viable source of data? Laughable.

  18. Leftards are now trying to go around the legislature any way they can, New York AG suing is closest they can get to Federal-type stoopidity. It’s like trying to close door on zombie mob with these carbontology fuckers. The obvious coordination between MSM, this dumbass AG, and the President all trying to build ‘momentum’ for the Paris Carbon Con is, amazingly, a new low.

  19. Pst, Schneiderman. When you’re done your with hunt shakedown I got this woodchipper that may interest you.

    1. Pst, Schneiderman. When you’re done your with hunt shakedown I got this woodchipper that may interest you.

      Important to note it’s a Tesla Model Chop windmill-powered woodchipper. Al Gore has one I hear.

      1. Speaking of which, I was reading some financials on the company. The figures are terrible.

        Someone called Tesla ‘climate indulgences for the wealthy’.


        1. Yep. My puts expire today. People are stupid.

        2. ‘climate indulgences for the wealthy’

          And a huge ass-reaming of the ‘merican public

    2. witch hunt.


  20. Key bit in the NYT piece, IMO:

    Thus, any potential fraud prosecution might depend on exactly how big a role company executives can be shown to have played in directing campaigns of climate denial, usually by libertarian-leaning political groups.

    So, an excuse to harass Heartland, CEI, and the like?

    1. Wouldn’t a campaign of climate denial have actually been a benefit to shareholders by propping up demand, making anti-oil legislation harder to pass, etc.?

      I haz a confooz.

      1. This is a insidious scheme by big lumber to sell more wood-chippers.

        1. +1 They’re still bitter about the owls.

  21. Maybe they should stop delivering fuel to all gov’t agencies. No more fuel to the activists either. They should tout the drastic reduction in emissions by their move, and that the offset will benefit current consumers with lower pricing. Merry Christmas bitches.

    Hell, maybe the power companies should start shutting off power to them too, in order to further reduce emissions. If your a card carrying enviro nut hell bent on climate science that continually needs to skew data to promote their agenda, then they should be off the grid.

    But……to solar up my house will cost $30,000!!!

    I thought we needed climate action now? So your house was chosen. The power, and feed to your home is scheduled to be removed immediately.

    This shit is really out of hand. They should be out investigating the fraudulent science used to promote this nonsense. That won’t happen though.

    1. Why in the world would you give these coercive shit-bag ignoramuses ideas?

  22. Again, Exxon just needs to shut down production for a couple of days. The resulting economic chaos would sink shit like this for a generation. Exxon can sell this to its shareholders as short-term pain for long-term gain.

    1. Or what Vampire said.

    2. If they tried the oil industry would get nationalized. You can’t call these people’s bluffs when all they want is power.

  23. Nice to know that Putin doesn’t get to have all the fun.

  24. As is so often the case (Hillary, Watergate etc) the coverup can be worse then the crime
    I am sure the prosecution is hoping for some shredding and deleting whether related or not, so they can catch EM in an obstruction trap, which much like a perjury trap (Martha Stewart) allows them to carve off their pound of flesh whether or not their underlying accusations have any merit

  25. Comrade Lysenko is proud of his continuing legacy.

  26. Sometimes people who don’t fucking love science enough just need a push in the right direction, down several flights of stairs onto broken glass

  27. I read about this a couple weeks ago. My understanding is that the original analysis was done by some intern. Some summer project, hey kid, do this analysis about warming. It somehow made it into some memos later. But that all seems to be getting lost — now it is some tobacco is addictive smoking gun. Did I miss something here?

    1. Yeah, it was.


      “Steve Knisely was an intern at Exxon Research and Engineering in the summer of 1979 when a vice president asked him to analyze how global warming might affect fuel use.

      They probably had an intern analyze just about everything at some point.

  28. “In any case, Schneiderman is specifically seeking evidence that ExxonMobil knew, but failed to warn its shareholders, about climate risks to its assets.”

    In what universe is it considered appropriate due diligence for a company’s management to inform their shareholders that quacks posing as “climate scientists” will advance an utterly preposterous fraud about an atmospheric trace gas of “greenhouse” potential so infinitesimal that the effect can’t be measured (much less estimated a century in advance) and utterly corrupt political hacks on the “Liberal” fascist left will take it up to conjure graft on a scale unimagined in human history?

    Twenty and thirty years ago, thermonuclear warfare was a more likely threat to Western civilization. Did ExxonMobil management stress such risks in communications with its shareholders?

    1. They also hid the Abiotic Oil Theory from investors, which may have a catastrophic impact on oil prices.

  29. Biggest crock of baloney yet. Exxon-Mobil, under pressure from “investors” and government regulators were forced to hire “environmental scientists” and place the on staff in advisory positions. They were ALL recent graduates from schools of so-called “environmental science” and properly indoctrinated in the idiotic BS those schools teach. What do you know? They found that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will likely cause “global temperatures to rise.” NONSENSE! Climate has changed hundreds of times–mostly before humans even GOT here. They’ve found tropical plants frozen deep in the polar icecaps, for pity’s sake! Life can’t EXIST on this planet without CO2. The more CO2, the more plant food. The more (and healthier) plants, the more ANIMAL life on the planet–including humans. Even if the planet DOES “heat up” by a couple of degrees, please explain to me how the polar regions going from an average of 18 degrees F to 20 degrees F is going to “melt” ANYTHING.

  30. Wow! A 1977 memo citing the uncertainties of known climate models – that seem to mirror what is currently being used to predict our doom, and have been thoroughly debunked over the intervening four decades.
    This is the best the NY AG’s office can come up with?
    Someone needs some remedial work on how to make a believable accusation.

    1. Four decades ago the chicken little’s were whining about a coming ice age, not globull warming. They’ve never been right about anything, but they make a lot of money out of being wrong and selling fear.

  31. Can someone explain to me how this is not putting the cart before the horse? They hear a report in the 70’s from one guy, and then they now must have the foresight 20+ years into the future to warn their clients and investors that this will have negative impacts on their returns due to future government action… 2+2=5

    This is certainly not about protecting investors and clients.

  32. Consensus: global warming, CO2 models are wacky and have been proven to be bogus. Screw that idiot AG in NY.

  33. This is actually a perfect opportunity to show what an absolute fraud AGW and its supporters are. Done right, it could possibly destroy them. Pass the popcorn and prep the woodchipper!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.