JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks


Advertising


Australian Speakers Agency



GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper



Archives

Exxon wins trial: “Exxon knew” proves to be junk claim

“Exxon knew” is now legally proven to be the vacuous empty dogwhistle it always was — a cheap stunt to whip up jealously and anger in gullible minds.

Exxon wins first-of-its-kind climate change case against New York

December 10, 2019,  Josh Seigel, Washington Examiner

ExxonMobil won a first-of-its-kind climate change fraud trial on Tuesday as a judge rejected the state of New York’s claim that the oil and gas giant misled investors in accounting for the financial risks of global warming.

New York Supreme Court Justice Barry Ostrager said the state failed to prove that Exxon violated the Martin Act, a broad state law that does not require proof of intent of shareholder fraud.

“The office of the Attorney General failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that ExxonMobil made any material misstatements or omissions about its practices and procedures that misled any reasonable investor,” Ostrager wrote in a 55-page ruling, deciding the case without a jury.

The Democrats in NY spent three years working on this before filing the suit, but apparently didn’t realize they were barking at clouds the whole time?

New York Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Zweig announced during his closing statement that the state would no longer be claiming Exxon knowingly and willfully misled investors on how it accounts for the financial risks of climate change.

Incompetence is the Deep State

Officials waste taxpayer money on frivolous law-suits to either support their own faith in a neopagan religion, or support the financial interests of their party donors. Their greatest strength is their overwhelming audacious confidence, but it’s also their greatest weakness, and guarantees they will take any tiny seed of something and run with it til they smash headlong on the rocks.

We can only hope some heads roll.

This is very related to the ASIC investigation coincidentally announced yesterday in Australia.

ASIC investigating large companies’ climate change risk management

Jackson Gothe-Snape, ABC

The corporate watchdog has launched a new surveillance program to ensure Australia’s biggest companies are dealing with the risks of climate change.

The move follows comments by former High Court judge and royal commissioner Kenneth Hayne that directors of companies could end up in court if they do not properly deal with the risk.

The Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC) has started contacting large companies this week as part of its investigation into climate risk governance.

We wish ASIC would investigate the CSIRO and BOM for misleading taxpayers and corporations about the risks of climate change. Who protects the taxpayers? Who is responsible for all the malinvestment, wasted money, destruction of a perfectly good grid?

If there are directors who are concerned please get in touch. I can quietly connect you with information and experts.

Greater minds than I may have more insight into the validity of the ASIC move. Why is a government watchdog trying to protect investors in situations where sane investors should be making up their own minds — both about the risk of climate change and also the corporate response? It’s as if the government has decided that no sane investor would prefer to put money into companies that are not wasting it preparing for a fantasy future.

Welcome to creeping communism — where the state decides what private businesses have to do, and what private investors need to know. After twenty years of non-stop propaganda on this topic surely there is no person in the West within one SD of an average IQ who is not  fully aware of theoretical, supposed “climate change” risks.

h/t Pat. Thank you for your card!  h/t also Howard H.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.7/10 (69 votes cast)
Exxon wins trial: "Exxon knew" proves to be junk claim, 9.7 out of 10 based on 69 ratings

82 comments to Exxon wins trial: “Exxon knew” proves to be junk claim

  • #
    RickWill

    No doubt ExxonMobil spent a large fortune fighting this action. The NY Attorney General views it as a win and encourages her to keep fighting to end climate change (good luck with that):

    “Throughout this case, we laid out how Exxon made materially false, misleading, and confusing representations to the American people about the company’s response to climate change regulations,” AG Letitia James mentioned in a press release.

    “Exxon’s inability to tell the truth, further underscores the lies that have been sold to the American public for decades. Despite this decision, we will continue to fight to ensure companies are held responsible for actions that undermine and jeopardize the financial health and safety of Americans across our country, and we will continue to fight to end climate change.”

    The people of NY have deep pockets and the “peoples’” lawyers are well paid by their authorities to pursue such actions. New York state challenges California for the highest proportion of dingbats per head of population.

    141

  • #
    PeterW

    It’s not just the abuse of the system in engaging of lawfare of this kind.

    The process itself, becomes a punishment. Not only are there huge legal fees, but enormous time lost and the inevitable consequences of negative publicity.

    Add to that, the irrational behaviour of some juries in awarding sympathy-money, and it is unsurprising that people, companies and government agencies err on the side of Kevlar undies.

    The only remedy is to award costs and damages against vexatious litigants.

    140

  • #
    AndyG55

    Thing is, nobody “knows” even now.

    Models etc are not “knowing”

    Unproven suppositions are not “knowing”

    Much of what they accuse Exxon of “knowing” is provable wrong anyway.

    Businesses should never make decisions based on baseless suppositions.

    121

  • #
    Daniel

    Good summary of how “Exxon knew” campaign came about
    https://www.corbettreport.com/what-did-exxonknew-and-when-did-they-knew-it-question-for-corbett-048/
    When I’ve looked at Exxon papers, I got an impression it was an overview of available data.
    Process appears to be an attempt to use legal system to strangle energy companies. Wondering what if energy companies decide to strike back and stop delivering petrol or power to state of NY…

    60

    • #
      tom0mason

      Daniel, I suggest that Exxon do exactly the opposite!
      I humbly suggest that the Exxon executive consider giving ALL registered New York vehicle owner (whether in State or not) a hefty discount (say 10% for 2 years) on the price of vehicle fuel. This will ensure that New York becomes the ICE powered vehicle capital of the USA and maybe the world.

      :-)

      20

  • #
    yarpos

    Opportunity cost is a frequent theme in the whole Green , AGW scam world (or it should be)

    You have to wonder what useful work the NY Attorney General Office could have been doing for the good people of NY State , rather than pursuing political ideology with no basis in fact.

    All around the world so many physical resources, money and human capital are consumed by things that are a complete waste of time. We will never know what might have been achieved in recent decades but for this stupidity.

    Trillions wasted while people are still homeless, without electricity, without clean water and defacating in the open. Future generations will be amazed that we thought the UN was useful or a force for good.

    101

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      yarpos:
      “Trillions wasted while people are still homeless, without electricity, without clean water and defecating in the open”
      PLEASE leave California out of this.
      https://www.businessinsider.com.au/san-francisco-human-poop-problem-2019-4?r=US&IR=T

      It must be due to Global Warming/Climate Change/Climate Disruption Extinction Rebellion..

      30

      • #
        yarpos

        I was thinking mainly of Africa and non coastal China really, but is is a little jarring that the items align uncomfortably. When I first visted California in the mid 70s I thought it was close to paradise in terms of the general environment and my interests at the time. Its quite stunning how quickly it has fallen apart. Last visited in 2012 and it was depressing then, so wont be going back to the well. Its probably worse when you visit from time to time as the changes seem very stark.

        10

  • #
    Betapug

    US Presidential Candidate Michael Bloomberg paid attorneys were inserted into the New York legal system to mount this prosecution. Unbelievable corruption. https://cei.org/sites/default/files/AGpdfFinal.pdf

    80

  • #

    The corporate watchdog has launched a new surveillance program to ensure Australia’s biggest companies are dealing with the risks of climate change.

    Businesses deal with risk all the time. Everything they do is based on a risk assessment. ASIC appears to be as ludicrous and relevant as Their ABC.

    100

  • #
    Depolrable Lord Kek

    “new surveillance program to ensure Australia’s biggest companies are dealing with the risks of climate change.”

    What about how is the Australian government dealing with the risks of ‘climate change’ (it’s time to turn this BS back on them).

    1. Immigration well above historic averages = more co2 emissions and therefore more climate change.

    70

  • #
    Maptram

    “The move follows comments by former High Court judge and royal commissioner Kenneth Hayne that directors of companies could end up in court if they do not properly deal with the risk.”

    Who will decide whether directors actions to deal with the risk are proper and what is the risk they have to deal with?

    We keep hearing that climate change will cause the ice to melt and sea levels to rise by 6 metres or something like that and that cutting CO2 emissions will stop climate change, thereby stopping sea levels from rising. If a company that owns and/or develops waterfront property, decides that there is a risk of of property flooding and decides to cut CO2 emissions have they dealt with the risk?

    130

    • #
      WXcycles

      It sounds an awful lot like a crooked shake-down, doesn’t it. Have you met your hazard assessment blah-blah yet? No?

      Well, just give us a brown-paper-bag with a little vig in cash in it for the office Christmas party, and we’ll call it even.

      20

    • #
      sophocles

      … and over the last thirty years, CO2 has risen by 25% (or 40% since 1850) Arctic ice has remained more or less the same and some volcanoes under the ice in Antarctica account easily for what melting has occurred there. Sea level rise isn’t happening so they have to keep telling those who live nowhere near the sea and can’t see that the sea is just sitting there, that it is.

      That’s over the last thirty years.

      Suddenly there’s a Climate Emergency.

      The only thing I can see which could be an emergency is that climate isn’t doing what they think or want it to do.
      So time is running out for their plans — there’s the emergency.

      20

      • #
        sophocles

        … or maybe it’s because the UN is running out of money?
        If you’re the UN, that could be an emergency …

        … never mind, it will get better in another 3 months. The ‘recession’ the world hasn’t had will come to an end before April next year [2020] and countries may be able to afford their UN dues again.

        00

  • #
    mmxx

    Unless QANTAS and Virgin Australia commence major annual reductions in flight numbers, it’s hard to see that they won’t be early ASIC targets under this nonsensical virtue chest-beating.

    70

  • #
    Mike Jonas

    1. re: “Welcome to creeping communism — where the state decides what private businesses have to do, and what private investors need to know.”. That’s fascism, not communism. Under communism there are no private businesses.

    2. Dealing with climate change risk should be extremely easy for most companies. They simply have to point out that their investment horizon is x years, and that in x years time there will be no noticeable climate change.

    110

    • #
      PeterW

      In practice, the difference between communism and racism is the slogans.

      As the Nazis said, it doesn’t matter who “owns” the business, if they do not do as they are told, they will find themselves up against the wall.

      That isn’t private ownership. That is involuntary labour. AKA slavery.

      30

      • #
        WXcycles

        The reich was very much built on mass-slavery but so was the communist empire of the USSR, the gulags were political slave labor camps.

        10

      • #
        sophocles

        … which is how the Nazis built the Siegfried Line — the `wall’ down the western side of Germany — in the 1930s. They didn’t pay the people and companies who built it.

        00

  • #
    robert rosicka

    Slowly the deception unwinds but the rhetoric increases in other areas .

    10

  • #
    Michael262

    Oi Veh, creeping deep communism !, bring on the babble.
    And you call this a science blog ?.

    015

    • #

      I realize “communism” is a difficult concept for you, and legal matters are as far outside your expertise as science is. Perhaps you could tell us what you are an expert in? Or maybe just stick to commenting on topics you understand?

      210

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        Jo;
        That is one way of never hearing from him again, although I would note that he managed to spell Michael correctly. Probably after 20+ years of learning.

        50

        • #
          sophocles

          Oh that little microcosmic mentality has been around for at least a year … just ignore it and maybe it will wither away.

          00

      • #
        Andrew McRae

        Jo,
        The modifier word “creeping” will let you get away with this one, as it implies communism is creeping up on us by implementing some of its conditions but is not fully established. However I do hope you understand what Communism is, at least as Marx & Engels defined it, because if you want to know the meaning of Communism it’s probably best to ask a Marxist.
        It is difficult to see how the existence of private companies, with all the company capitalist-owned assets this implies, could ever be compatible with the Marxist notion of the workers controlling the means of production and the Communist reorganisation of productive factors so that the practice of property rights cannot be used to “self-alienate” the worker from their own job.

        Another interesting point of partisan difference, the original “Demands of the Communist Party in Germany” of 1848 demanded “the universal arming of the people”, which was not a metaphor and is endorsing physical weapons. That’s the polar opposite of the Progressive Left today. One might instead infer that the Communist Party of that time were not above compromising their Communist principles to gain broader worker support, and that this point of Party difference does not disqualify the modern “Progressives” from being Communists at heart.

        One also has to recognise that if a society is not anarchist it has laws that apply to some or all of the entities in it, and one should expect that companies can be mandated or prohibited to do particular activities the same as the individual is subject to laws. I do not think you are saying that companies should not be regulated in any way, only there are particular types of activities which should be their prerogative (eg investment decisions) which a particular growing faction in our society today wishes to interfere with greatly. It is the totalitarian part of Communism that you’re highlighting as creeping. But communists did not gain a monopoly on totalitarianism.

        To avoid any confusion in what you were suggesting, you may have to use the other F-word. What other political ideology could you call it when capital investors and company bosses still nominally own the means of production and may compete with each other for contracts, but in practice the omnipresent agents of Green State ideology (in the Twittersphere and the government bureaucracy) pressure and force every company to materially and socially invest in an ideological programme contrary to market value?
        There’s not too many words which describe that state of affairs, and Communism is not one of them. Australia has thankfully not gone very far down this road yet, but one could say that of Flynn’s 8 markers, points 3, 4, and 6 can be ticked off as complete. It’s creeping, but a different kind of creeping.

        00

    • #
      william x

      Michael262,

      you are as free as I am to make a post on this site. Value that you are able to do that. Many societies and countries would not allow that.

      Both of us have the privilege to present an argument here, prosecute it and allow it to be discussed. There may be disagreements to our argument, that will be posted to us in return. We may counter argue and so forth. We do so by debating without hate.

      Your last statement.

      “And you call this a science blog ?.”

      please tell me what a science blog is and what a science blog should be.

      Your comments seem to reflect that you are a highly qualified scientist. I didn’t know that we had a contributor like you that is so versed and studied in their field.

      If you are unsatisfied by how ignorant in science the posters and moderators on this site are, I would suggest that you start and create your own science blog.

      120

      • #
        AndyG55

        “Your comments seem to reflect that you are a highly qualified scientist!”

        On the contrary, mickey’s comments show he hasn’t even the most basic comprehension of what real science is.

        You will find he has only ever made mindless “blah-blah” type statements,

        .. and has never put forward anything even remotely resembling any sort of science.

        51

    • #
      AndyG55

      Mickey should read Agenda 21,

      He should look at the policies that AGW doomsters want to inflict on society

      Then he should actually think for him self and realise that it is straight from the socialist/communist handbook

      But Mickey does not have the free will to think for himself.

      31

    • #
      RB.

      A rubbish excuse for a government to control what a private business does. There should be some checks and balances but kept to a minimum and this was overreach into the bizarre. Surely blatant creeping communism?

      20

  • #

    Memo from QANTAS in the lead up to Christmas:

    Because of the threat of climate change and how fossil fuels are the main contributor to that, we hereby advise that as from December 18, until further notice, QANTAS and its subsidiary airlines will cease all flying operations.

    Watch the bovine waste come into violent contact with the rotating wind generating device when that memo hits the front pages.

    Tony.

    200

    • #
      mmxx

      Pertinent comment, Tony!

      How does QANTAS keep its WOKE, “sustainable” and “progressive” reasons solvent in the global climate dilemma they agree to prophesise?

      60

      • #
        WXcycles

        Via copious three times daily application of the purest grade of industrial-scale highly-enriched-hypocrisy.

        40

    • #
      sophocles

      I can’t see any problem there Tony — it’s more business for their competition Air New Zealand. Now, with Air NZ every passenger is invited to offset their carbon contribution by paying a fee over and above their fare.

      (I have no idea how well that works but Air NZ hasn’t scrapped it yet, so it must be bringing something in from the gullibles.)

      00

  • #
    pat

    11 Dec: ClimateChangeNews: US seeking further block on compensation for climate damage
    By Chloé Farand
    A US proposal being circulated at Cop25 talks in Madrid, which CHN understands hasn’t yet been formally submitted to the UN, would extend the liability waiver to mentions of loss and damage in decision texts under the UNFCCC convention, the supreme decision-making body at UN Climate Change…

    The US position, the text of which CHN has seen, also proposes that all countries, including those not party to Paris, be eligible to serve on the executive committee governing loss and damage negotiations.
    The move could allow the US to have a say on the governance of the loss and damage mechanism and reflects the US’ intention to continue to wield influence on the talks…

    One developing country diplomat told CHN there was a shared view among vulnerable countries that including a waiver on liability and compensation in the Cop25 decision was “a no go”. This, he said, could become a red line if the US pressed ahead, potentially threatening a broader discussion on loss and damage…

    Harjeet Singh, global lead on climate change for ActionAid, told Climate Home News: “As civil society, we are completely outraged. There is nothing worse that can happen in this space.”…
    https://climatechangenews.com/2019/12/11/us-seeking-block-compensation-climate-damage/

    30

    • #
      pat

      not just US, naturally.

      9 Dec: Politico: UN climate talks sputter on carbon market disputes
      Connecting the world’s new carbon emissions trading schemes remains a priority for countries struggling to meet their Paris Agreement targets.
      By Zack Colman and Kalina Oroschakoff
      “Whenever you come here, you reach for the moon, and in the end of the day you reach the fence,” said Tosi Mpanu-Mpanu, a negotiator from the Democratic Republic of Congo…

      The struggle over the next few days will be to get wealthy nations to give up their long-held opposition to the loss and damage issues that were first put on the agenda in 1991 by Vanuatu, a nation of islands in the South Pacific.
      “For the last six years developing countries have not seen progress on loss and damage finance,” said Harjeet Singh, advocacy group Action Aid’s global lead on climate change, who is involved in the negotiations.

      ***Singh said Australia, the U.S., Canada and Japan in particular are “blocking” the loss and damage effort, and called on the EU to “break the deadlock and actually start engaging with these proposals.”
      https://www.politico.eu/article/un-climate-talks-sputter-on-carbon-market-disputes/?utm_campaign=RSS_Syndication&utm_medium=RSS&utm_source=RSS_Feed

      40

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        pat:

        For once I agree with Harjeet Singh “Let the EU break the deadlock and actually start engaging with these proposals.” Quickest way to bankrupt the EU and destroy thousands of bureaucratic jobs. I am sceptical that the bureaucrats will cooperate, but we can but hold out hope to the gullible.

        40

      • #
        yarpos

        ““Whenever you come here, you reach for the moon, and in the end of the day you reach the fence,” said Tosi Mpanu-Mpanu, a negotiator from the Democratic Republic of Congo…”

        mmmmmm one of the 200 ish delegates from DRC

        20

  • #
    Phoenix44

    It’s not just taxpayers money being wasted – its shareholders and customers money too. Since most of us have pensions and most are customers, we are paying for the costs on both sides of this nonsense.

    This sort of idiocy is driven by the belief that companies can pay out billions without it affecting employees, customers or pension-holders . That might work for small areas of the economy (tobacco say) but is won’t for oil and gas.

    110

  • #
    Antoine D'Arche

    ASIC, and I hope those intellectual infants are listening, HAVE NO BUSINESS looking at climate change risk management in private companies.
    What a mob of absolute deadbeats.

    140

  • #
    pat

    no specific times given for any of this:

    10 Dec: Guardian: Thousands were paid to use extra renewable electricity on windy weekend
    by Jillian Ambrose
    Thousands of households were paid to use extra renewable electricity over the weekend as windfarms generated unprecedented levels of clean power.
    Homes using a new type of smart-energy tariff were urged to plug in their electric vehicles overnight and set their dishwasher on a timer to take advantage of the record renewables in the ***early hours of the morning.

    The blustery weather helped windfarms generate almost 45% of the UK’s electricity on Sunday, setting a record of more than 16GW that evening. At times there was more wind power than the UK needed…
    The customers who were able to pop on a middle-of-the-night laundry load could have earned a renewables windfall of between 1p and 5p for every kWh of electricity they used, rather than spending double this rate to run appliances for only a few hours later…
    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/dec/09/thousands-were-paid-to-use-extra-renewable-electricity-on-windy-weekend

    TWEET: National Grid, ESO Control Room, Electricity National Control Centre @ng_eso. We balance #electricity generation and demand in real-time across GB.
    It’s official! After a #windyweekend yesterday saw a record level of wind powered electricity generation in Great Britain!
    9 Dec 2019
    FIRST REPLY:
    RenewableUK: Please can you confirm what time of day this was, and what % of electricity wind was generating? And if possible what other sources were providing? Many thanks!

    ESO Control Room:
    Hi, no problem! It was between 5pm and 5.30pm (we measure in 1/2 hour periods). These are the %’s for that period too :) ETC ETC

    John (Scully)
    What a difference a month makes.
    (PIC: ESO Control Room Tweet 6 Nov 2019 showing wind provided 4.0% etc)
    https://twitter.com/NGControlRoom/status/1204000995421888517

    meanwhile, on 10 Dec:

    TWEET: National Grid, ESO Control Room
    Yesterday #gas generated 29.7% of British electricity, more than wind 26.7%, nuclear 19.6%, biomass 8.9%, imports 5.5%, coal 4.5%, hydro 2.9%, solar 1.9%, other 0.4% *excl. non-renewable distributed generation
    10 Dec 2019
    https://twitter.com/NGControlRoom/status/1204440053772148736

    30

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      pat:
      my off peak usage averages 5.5kWh per day (mostly the Hot Water Service which uses off peak electricity rates). My usage must vary depending on my using the washing machine but doesn’t show up. On this basis I MIGHT collect approx. 100-150 pence per year by running my laundry at around midnight. That might cause problems with my neighbours whose bedrooms are considerably more distant from my laundry than is usual in the UK, but even so I don’t think saving 80¢ a week would be worth the trouble.
      There is also a problem to getting up at midnight to hang up the washing to dry.

      20

    • #
      ivan

      ESO is the group that is trying to get all UK households to install the so called ‘smart’ meters that will allow them to switch off some consumers when there isn’t enough electricity generated by the unreliable renewables. They may say that the price went negative but I very much doubt if any household will see any bill reduction from that as there doesn’t appear to be any mechanism to allow negative prices to be passed on.

      I can’t help wondering if ESO is a con setup to fool the people especially when they tell us ‘ESO became a separate entity within the group on 1 April 2019′, does that date have ant significance?

      10

  • #
    pat

    10 Dec: Reuters: EU ‘will not hesitate’ to protect its industry over carbon – commissioner
    by Matthew Green
    The European Union will not hesitate to take steps to protect its industries from competitors who do not respect the 2015 Paris Agreement to curb global warming, the EU’s top climate official said on Monday.
    Asked about the EU’s position on a possible “carbon tax” on imports from high-emitting competitors, EU climate commissioner Timmermans said he hoped there would be no need to take such a step as the world moves to implement the Paris accord.
    “I hope then there will be no need for such a measure, but if it is necessary, we will not hesitate to take it,” Timmermans told a news conference at U.N. climate negotiations in Madrid.

    In October, Timmermans said research would begin on the new tax, intended to protect European companies from unfair competition by raising the cost of products from countries taking inadequate action against climate change…

    The issue has emerged as a source of friction between China and the EU at a time when their cooperation is seen as vital to implementing the Paris accord, which aims to steer the world off its trajectory towards catastrophic warming…
    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-climate-change-accord-timmermans/eu-will-not-hesitate-to-protect-its-industry-over-carbon-commissioner-idUSKBN1YD21N

    40

  • #
    pat

    a final word on the Madrid climate protest numbers.
    left-leaning El Pais:

    9 Dec: El Pais Spain: In photos: Climate change march in Madrid
    PIC 3. Protesters march down Paseo de la Castellana avenue in Madrid. According to the local police, around 15,000 people took part in the demonstration.
    PIC 9.The march was backed by 850 social and environmental organizations…
    https://elpais.com/elpais/2019/12/09/album/1575881031_787426.html#foto_gal_9

    the best El Pais can estimate is “25,000 to 35,000″:

    VIDEO: 9 Dec: El Pais Spain: Greta Thunberg: “People are suffering and dying from the climate emergency today”
    Multiple authors
    On Friday Thunberg was forced to leave a street march early due to security concerns, and she asked the media to “not listen to me before anyone else. I am a small part of a very big movement.”…

    Thunberg later spoke to the media in the company of other young activists at La Casa Encendida, where no fewer than ***420 reporters were on hand to listen to her…
    Thunberg later participated in a climate march that attracted ***15,000 people according to the local police, and between ***25,000 and 35,000 according to this newspaper’s estimates…

    Two youths were arrested and six police officers sustained injuries at a march that featured Spanish actor Javier Bardem, who called Madrid Mayor José Luis Martínez-Almeida “stupid” for his positions on climate change. The actor has since apologized, saying that personal insults are not constructive…

    On Sunday, Thunberg managed to briefly avoid the press and showed up at Madrid’s Complutense University wearing a blue hoodie that covered her face. Walking into a classroom normally used for Spanish language lessons, the young woman met for a little over an hour with other activists, as well as her father and her press manager, to prepare the agenda for this week, when the COP25 summit will draw to a close.
    Thunberg chose the university campus because it is the meeting place for hundreds of groups working on environmental issues, and it is informally referred to as the headquarters of the “counter-summit.”…

    One is on Monday, when she will join German politician Luisa Neuebauer and other young activists at the COP25 summit. The other one is set for Wednesday, when Thunberg and US actor Harrison Ford will meet with representatives of the climate movement from Chile and Spain.
    “I don’t want to be the only voice of youth at the summit,” she said, according to people who were present on Sunday. At that point, word had already spread that Thunberg was in the room, ***and reporters had started to show up…
    https://elpais.com/elpais/2019/12/09/inenglish/1575879601_964866.html

    so who can make BBC and other FakeNewsMSM accountable for continuing to claim there were 500,000?

    30

    • #
      pat

      should have said:

      so who can make BBC and other FakeNewsMSM accountable for continuing to claim there were 500,000, ***based on the word of co-organisers, Greta and Greenpeace?

      we had the same problem with the NYC climate protest in September, with Greta claiming 250,000 protesters.

      20 Sept: CBS: Millions hit the streets for global climate change strike – live updates
      By Haley Ott
      •Climate activist Greta Thunberg estimated she was joined by ***250,000 in New York City…
      Thunberg addressed the crowd that she estimated to be ***250,000…
      Thunberg tweeted there were an estimated ***250,000 people at the New York City march…
      TWEET: Greta Thunberg
      The estimated number in New York is over ***250,000! They closed the park because there were too many people… I’m speaking soon at Battery Park
      https://www.cbsnews.com/live-news/global-climate-change-strike-protests-today-2019-09-20-live-updates/

      the actual figure was around 60,000:

      20 Sept: ABC7 New York: More than 60,000 in New York City attend Global Climate Strike
      Officials said more than 60,000 attended…
      https://abc7ny.com/politics/more-than-60000-in-nyc-attend-global-climate-strike/5554828/

      even CAGW-infested Reuters ignored Greta’s claim:

      21 Sept: Reuters: Adults swell ranks of students marching in record global climate protest
      New York City officials estimated that 60,000 people marched there…

      20

  • #
    WXcycles

    The European Union will not hesitate to take steps to protect its industries from competitors who do not respect the 2015 Paris Agreement to curb global warming, the EU’s top climate official said on Monday.

    When I was a teen I experienced a spiral holier-than-thou fundamentalist mentality. The problem with it is it always amplifies into a self-reinforcing cycle where there’s never enough that can be done to satisfy the also amplifying imposed fake-guilt and fake-fear. And the need to do thinks to express fake-virtue and a false image of happiness and satisfaction.

    When the truth is the lack virtue and the imposition endless control and misery, papered-over with smiles which contain zero happiness. It’s insufferable, and people do not keep putting up with it. The proto-communist EU Commission is foolishly creating the circumstances for a coalescing Europe-wide rebellion and making it actually essential to impose freedom once again, and bin the dangerous leftist fools who keep trying to eliminate it.

    Driving people to fanaticism via fear simply doesn’t work. That was also the quintessence of George Orwell’s 1948 prophetic warning about what could occur once again in Europe, only he called it “1984″ instead – it just took 35 years longer to develop.

    20

  • #
    pat

    Jo – got your message. thanks.

    20

  • #
    Peter Fitzroy

    This is a rerun of the Y2K scare, but in reverse.
    The Y2K problem was generally acknowledged to only pose a slight risk, but because there was that risk, legally, action had to be taken to mitigate it. This a bedrock principle of our inherited legal system.

    In this case it is generally acknowledged the climate change poses a huge (but not here, I concede) risk, and therefore action to mitigate it must be taken. This is not about science, but law. The law says if a risk is identified, and the organisation is informed of that risk, that organisation must take action.

    119

    • #
      AndyG55

      There is no risk from human caused global warming at all.

      Because, as you continue to prove, it does not exist !

      No risk has even been scientifically identified.

      It is all about fantasy science and doomer scaremongering.

      No company should ever bow to that sort of anti-science nonsense.

      152

    • #
      william x

      re law.

      you state.

      “The law says if a risk is identified, and the organisation is informed of that risk, that organisation must take action.”

      And if international law states that a risk is identified, and our govt is informed of that risk. it follows that our govt must take action.. Is that what you are proposing?

      40

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Ah yes, the ubiquitous Mr. Fitzroy once again.

      I lived through the Y2K scare laughing all the way while a lot of people who didn’t know their elbow from a hole in the ground pontificated about it. Come January 1, 2000 guess what happened, nothing. The people who knew what was going on all went to work quietly fixing the problem and frankly, if all the self appointed guardians of their own opinion had never said a word the problems would all have been fixed anyway and January 1, 2000 would have been a New Years Day like all the others before and after that fateful day when the world was supposed to grind to a halt but didn’t, just the start of another year.

      Your legal principle is nonsense. The business world had a better incentive. They didn’t want to go down the drain when their computer systems all failed.

      If you knew anything at all about the problem you should have been embarrassed to mention it in the same context as risk. There was no risk. But you mentioned it as though you know something useful about it and I just told you off. You deserve it. You earned it in fact, now live with it.

      And the funny thing now is, there still is no risk. But Peter Fitzroy will say otherwise like always.

      If no one else will say it I will, Peter, you are the classic man in the empty suit. You offer nothing and we all pay for it with no end of irritation and wasted time.

      81

      • #
        Peter Fitzroy

        Well Y2K was identified as a problem in the late 70′s when bank loans, and some insurance policies ran into it as a calculation error, as most systems were using 2 digit year. UNIX system internals missed that as they calculated in seconds from a standard reference date, which I believe was 1st Jan 1970. So there was a known risk, and steps were taken to remediate it.

        Due to that experience, I personally did not buy the hype around Y2K, until a lawyer at an international firm explained it in terms of risk, and reasonable steps to mitigate it.

        My point was that Y2K was only a small risk (IMHO) whereas AGW, Climate Change (call it what you will) is a huge problem.

        But in terms of risk, in our system (I have no experience in international law), steps must be taken to mitigate it once it has been identified.

        to your point “Your legal principle is nonsense. The business world had a better incentive. They didn’t want to go down the drain when their computer systems all failed” <- that is a risk right there. but yous pend paragraphs saying that there was no risk – can you make up your mind?

        As to the legal principle of risk – look it up, it is a bedrock of our legal system.

        34

        • #
          AndyG55

          “whereas AGW, Climate Change (call it what you will) is a huge problem”

          What utter anti-science bovine excrement.

          There is no provable risk from human related global climate change.

          That is because, as you keep proving, there is no scientifically provable human caused global climate change

          As you are well aware, its all just un-validated model based scaremongering,

          .. all based on zero reality and zero empirical science.

          Any company that increases costs to cater for a fantasy, could be held liable by its shareholders.

          22

        • #
          AndyG55

          “So there was a known risk” [Y2K]

          But there is no known risk from human cause global climate change, because there is no real scientific evidence that it exists.

          A continued slight global temperature, mostly in colder climate, concurrent with increased atmospheric CO2, would most likely be quite beneficial, opening up vast tracts of land in the NH to cultivation.

          The real risk is a quite likely cooling trend, especially with so many once stable electricity systems becoming unstable due to unreliable supply sources.

          In what way has the global climate changed in the last 40 years that can be scientifically proven to be caused by human release of CO2, PF?

          You have continually failed to answer this question.

          21

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          Back again I see. Well it’s obvious that you know nothing about Y2K. It was a non problem to society. Period. It was nothing worse than any other software design issue and never needed anyone to point it out. I was on the inside, Peter, looking out at you panicking over everyday challenges of my profession; all talk but no ability to do anything about it, in fact no desire to do anything about it because it allowed you and your complaining friends to do just that, complain.

          For me it just went on the end of a long list of things to take care of, I took care of it and never said a word about it because it was part of the daily challenges I faced. You act like it was the only problem the IT world had to deal with. I assure you it was not. You can take your legal theory and see if they buy it somewhere else. No one here buys it.

          Your attitude disgusts me. You are worth nothing but trouble since you showed up commenting here. My advice from here on out is to ignore you. If that happens you’ll disappear because you can’t stand to be ignored can you?

          And by the way, I have never seen anything more reliable than the desire of business to avoid trouble to avoid failure and stay in business. I would bank on that incentive before I would rely on any legal incentive. People always know which side their bread is buttered on.

          31

        • #
          beowulf

          As to the legal principle of risk – look it up, it is a bedrock of our legal system.

          I’d suggest you look it up yourself then study it in detail and get back to us in a couple of years. What you are attempting to refer to in your maladroit fashion is the “general duty of care” which is the basis of negligence law, both common and statute, and did not exist in law until 1932. Until some idiot government comes along with a new statute that says we are legally liable for climate change — which is entirely possible given the low intellect of governments and the power of the Greens — we are left with tortious negligence under common law.

          Tortious negligence is constrained by among other things, the test of “reasonable foreseeability”. It is also constrained by the need for an omission by the accused to be an “active omission” — an omission they actively took part in, as opposed to a “passive omission”. You are not negligent if some event over which you had no control causes injury or loss to another individual. If you were staying in a motel and that motel was struck by an asteroid, injuring you, that would be deemed something beyond the owner’s ability to influence, much the same as a drought or flood would not be the owner’s fault. Was it reasonably foreseeable; was the owner aware of a pending asteroid impact; did the owner fail to take asteroid precautions like spending several hundred million on a bunker for his motel? No, it’s garbage. You could not sue the owner for asteroid damage to your baggage.

          If on the other hand, there were say massive bushfires caused by gross negligence of authorities in charge of managing the lands on which those fires took hold and spread to surrounding properties, then that would be an active omission, entirely actionable under tort law. That would be especially so given the overwhelming evidence of multiple previous Royal Commissions and enquiries after similar blazes, the recommendations of which for greatly increased hazard reduction had been completely ignored by the said authorities, leading to great loss of life and property. Sue the ar$e off them.

          Back at ya Peter. PS If you have access to a law library your remedial reading should commence with the case of Donoghue v. Stevenson AER 1932 Vol2 p.130, which established the modern law of negligence.

          You should know by now not to prattle about things you have no knowledge of . . . like Gondwanan relict rainforest et al.

          30

          • #
            AndyG55

            “You should know by now not to prattle about things you have no knowledge of”

            That would truly be the very end of any possible PF comments !

            He has to prattle on about things he knows nothing about.

            Its all he has.

            30

        • #
          sophocles

          Nope. WAU = Wrong As Usual, Fitzroy.

          I did a lot of OS and other programming over the 80s and 90s — that’s how I earned my substantial income in the Data Centre of a Bank as a systems (OS and Applications) programmer. Very little was actually vulnerable. What the gullible didn’t know was that the problem affected PCs, through their 16-bit BIOS and their OS’s (MS and IBM) running in 16-bit Real Mode, only the 16-bit hardware and software. 32-bit hardware appeared in 1983. It had a second mode known as Protected Mode.
          Unix for that hardware was close behind.

          MS produced a true protected mode OS in 1993: Windows NT, version 3.1 which proved to be a large, flaky slug. I tried it. It is what drove me into Linux.

          Most businesses, especially the banks and insurance companies, used some version of Unix and virtualising operating systems on the Mainframes. By the 1990s, IBM mainframes could run up to 64K images of Linux. On all systems, the date could be set manually (everyday). It was only the 16-bit operating system which ran into a 16-bit calculation blunder known as Y2-K. It was just like modern-day Climate Change — based on ignorance propagenda and gullibility. Up to the late 1990s Unix was ubiquitous in commerce and for Unix it didn’t matter and still doesn’t.

          Most computers now are 64-bit, so clock/calendar problems are even less of a problem.
          I still have a copy of DOS version 2.0 source code rattling around somewhere.
          I still have copies of other versions of DOS including my own (YAFDOS — Yet Another F-word Disk Operating System) kicking around on a CD somewhere. Don’t ask for them because I can’t be bothered to look for them. Linux and OpenBSD are much more interesting. If you want a version of DOS to run on modern hardware, check out FreeDOS. There are much better free operating syatems around than it, though.
          Sun’s OS is out there — Ilumos
          The BSDs are out there — FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD
          There’s Linux in many different flavours.
          Most computers now are 64-bit, so clock/calendar problems are even less of a problem.
          We’re spoilt for choice now.

          10

          • #
            AndyG55

            I actually did some contract work for Optus involved in the Y2K scare.

            They decided to switch out all their old 286 and earlier PCs to Compaq 386′s (iirc)

            Was great fun trying to source replacement software for old apps that linked into old diagnostic gear… not!

            And even harder to prise some of those old machines out of the hands of guys doing data collection for experiments. They just didn’t want the hassle of learning to use new interface cards and trying to get consistency. etc.

            We were rolling out, with all new software, some 50-100 PC’s a day at times.

            Fun times.

            20

            • #
              sophocles

              I sympathise: I had some similar problems the closer we got to Y-2K trying to prise machinery out of the concrete it had been cast into. Open Source Software was just starting to burgeon and this may have been behind it’s sudden rise. I found there was something to replace almost anything but much of it was too new to be really useful. Ouch. Now, OSS is far more sophisticated and even MS produces it. MS even contribute to the Linux kernel … who woulda thunk it?

              The 286s were all treated as fast 16-bit CPUs. They could switch into protected mode but couldn’t switch back. Many peripheral cards couldn’t handle protected mode for years. The 386s fixed the protected mode problem but were limited to 16-bit operation in Real Mode for many devices which made for tedious workarounds. The first 640K of memory was used as `bounce buffers’ for the Real Mode devices and device drivers.

              I remember the Compaq 386′s — they were nice machines – very reliable and SCO Unix slotted right into them (1989-1990).

              10

          • #
            sophocles

            Even his “Risk” consultant was IT illiterate.

            I had two functional IBM-clone PC-XTs, one made in 1982, and one in 1986, the original 16-bit architecture. It should have been end-of-life then but it was not until after the 32-bit 486 with the builtin co-processor came out in 1988 that PC-XT stuff started to disappear. I finally scrapped them at the start of this year. They both still worked but they were taking space which was much more valuable. The clock was not a problem but the calendar would default to the First of January 1980 during system boot. However, as I said above, the year could be set by hand. Y2-K was an out-of-control fantasy.

            One had an ancient version of Lotus123 on it. I should have run the spread sheet up and filled in some calculations but, as it was all going out complete with 20MB hard drives, I couldn’t be bothered. They should have been 10MB hard drives but, well, I had the 20s doing nothing and they were Japanese National brand, built like post WW1 dreadnaughts, and the full-height 10MB drives were working as doorstops.

            10

    • #
      yarpos

      not an IT literate person then PF

      30

  • #

    Anyone using the terms “global warming” and “climate change” to describe a very specific and actionable effect has not even begun to think. Sloppy terms, sloppy thinking…and in the case of New York Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Zweig, sloppy law.

    What doctor would dare to diagnose “spots”, “aches and pains” or “spewy feeling”? The job of the professional is to define and specify before proceeding. We know that the climate industry is a beat-up by its stubborn refusal to stop using diffuse and all-but-meaningless terminology like “climate change” and “global warming”. I have never met anybody who believes climate is static.

    Again, if you are using the terms “climate change” and “global warming” to define an actionable effect you are – no nice way of putting this – a slob. The fact that thousands of educated and qualified people continue to do this only means we have thousands of educated and qualified slobs.

    80

    • #
      sophocles

      It looks very much as though it was all founded on belief. That’s dangerous when it comes to providing fact facts, instead of belief facts. As long as courts insist on fact facts it can’t go a lot further, not just yet.
      I remember Piltdown Man.

      Sloppy thinking is not good. It’s the hallmark of the gullible idiot. Which is exactly what those AGs were/are.

      00

  • #
    observa

    We wish ASIC would investigate the CSIRO and BOM for misleading taxpayers and corporations about the risks of climate change.

    What hope is there when they have no shame or conscience about the lies they tell.

    It’s only their lunar prescriptions that will bring them down eventually and the critical one will be their national grid train wreck.

    40

  • #
    Zigmaster

    This is all part of the Australian swamp. The march through the institutions and big business is really disturbing. I completed the directors course run by the AICD and was a paid up member for 12 months but couldn’t stand the hectoring in their literature about global warming. It’s really difficult when the corporate class acquiesces to the greenie elements within. Where has the old fashioned principal of acting in the interests of shareholders get replaced by a requirement to support and give in to the activist and grievance industries. What scares me about this type of thinking is I actually think the people that support these issues actually believe what their saying and can’t see the actual lunacy of things they are proposing. That’s what happens after a 20 year period of indoctrination has been undertaken through our schools , universities and media.

    70

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    ASIC investigating large companies’ climate change risk management

    What risk is there to manage? None. So what is there to investigate? Hmm…climate change risk management. Looks like a good business opportunity for someone who wants an easy ride to high income. Just think about all the consulting fees you can charge some poor unsuspecting business to advise them how to manage the huffing and puffing of some government bureaucrat breathing down their neck.

    20

  • #
    graham dunton

    This is,the ever-creeping cancer, that has engulfed the US, named law-fare.
    It has jailed innocent people, and pivotal in swamp hits.

    As for ASIC, this is certainly a waste of taxpayer dollars.
    Politicians where are they, on holiday, I hope they have a backup generator,there is nothing worse than a half-cooked turkey, or just maybe a half-baked polly!

    30

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Whatever its name it’s a joke to anyone with any common sense at all and it’s now at critical mass. Does it go boom or fizzle. I don’t know but this point in history will be the deciding moment. I’m predicting Trump will wipe up the floor in the senate chamber with his accusers and them go on to win a second term. And for the first time in a long time some politicians will suffer for their actions. But so much more is needed that I can’t see Trump getting it all done.

      40

      • #

        I’m predicting Trump will wipe up the floor in the senate chamber with his accusers and them go on to win a second term.

        Republican supporters (shouting with joy) Four more years.

        Democrat supporters (pleading with hope) Four more years Ruth, just four more years!

        Tony.

        50

        • #
        • #
          beowulf

          I think Ruth’s Use-By date is up.

          Tony is referring to Democrat Judge Ruth Ginsberg on the US Supreme Court who has been in and out of hospital for months, struggling with 2 forms of cancer and other complaints. When she goes the court will tip decidedly to the conservatives.

          20

  • #
    Zane

    Exxon pushes its own green schtick. The website for their CCS division proudly proclaims that Exxon ” has captured and stored more CO2 than any other company.” Wow it sounds like they deserve a green medal! Sarc. I say, free the CO2! Wrongful imprisonment is a major misdemeanor. Somebody please call a lawyer!

    At the very least let CO2 out on parole…

    10

  • #
    Brian

    I would like a separate surveillance program set up in Australia to ensure Australia’s governments and energy companies are dealing with the risks surrounding inappropriate knee jerk reactions to climate change memes. You know, necessarily expensive and unreliable energy supplies, lack of national self sufficiency,
    de-industrialisation etc.

    30