Should companies be prosecuted for not believing in climate Change?

Should companies be prosecuted for not believing in climate Change? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

KenDckey -> Should companies be prosecuted for not believing in climate Change? (4/4/2016 2:01:51 PM)
quote: http://dailysignal.com/2016/04/04/16-democrat-ags-begin-inquisition-against-climate-change-disbelievers/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=thf-fb Speaking at a press conference on March 29, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said “The bottom line is simple: Climate change is real.” He went on to say that if companies are committing fraud by “lying” about the dangers of climate change, they will “pursue them to the fullest extent of the law.” The coalition of 17 inquisitors are calling themselves “AGs United for Clean Power.” The coalition consists of 15 state attorneys general (California, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Virginia, Vermont, and Washington State), as well as the attorneys general of the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands. Sixteen of the seventeen members are Democrats, while the attorney general for the Virgin Islands, Claude Walker, is an independent. Believe as we say or else? come on. No law requires you to believe whatever. It is actions that violate laws and if there is one out there that says you have to publically proclaim something as truth it probably violates the 1st amendment.

thompsonx -> RE: Should companies be prosecuted for not believing in climate Change? (4/4/2016 2:06:45 PM)
ORIGINAL: KenDckey Believe as we say or else? come on. No law requires you to believe whatever. It is actions that violate laws and if there is one out there that says you have to publically proclaim something as truth it probably violates the 1st amendment. That is not what it says, now is it. It says if you are commiting fraud they will be prosecuted. Don't you believe in the rule of law?

mnottertail -> RE: Should companies be prosecuted for not believing in climate Change? (4/4/2016 2:17:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey quote: http://dailysignal.com/2016/04/04/16-democrat-ags-begin-inquisition-against-climate-change-disbelievers/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=thf-fb Speaking at a press conference on March 29, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said “The bottom line is simple: Climate change is real.” He went on to say that if companies are committing fraud by “lying” about the dangers of climate change, they will “pursue them to the fullest extent of the law.” The coalition of 17 inquisitors are calling themselves “AGs United for Clean Power.” The coalition consists of 15 state attorneys general (California, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Virginia, Vermont, and Washington State), as well as the attorneys general of the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands. Sixteen of the seventeen members are Democrats, while the attorney general for the Virgin Islands, Claude Walker, is an independent. Believe as we say or else? come on. No law requires you to believe whatever. It is actions that violate laws and if there is one out there that says you have to publically proclaim something as truth it probably violates the 1st amendment. Nutsucker slobber blog. No such thing was said, and someone should have went to a reputable source to see what was said, and what this was about. No, dont worry it is nutsuckerism, nothing more.

BamaD -> RE: Should companies be prosecuted for not believing in climate Change? (4/4/2016 2:17:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey quote: http://dailysignal.com/2016/04/04/16-democrat-ags-begin-inquisition-against-climate-change-disbelievers/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=thf-fb Speaking at a press conference on March 29, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said “The bottom line is simple: Climate change is real.” He went on to say that if companies are committing fraud by “lying” about the dangers of climate change, they will “pursue them to the fullest extent of the law.” The coalition of 17 inquisitors are calling themselves “AGs United for Clean Power.” The coalition consists of 15 state attorneys general (California, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Virginia, Vermont, and Washington State), as well as the attorneys general of the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands. Sixteen of the seventeen members are Democrats, while the attorney general for the Virgin Islands, Claude Walker, is an independent. Believe as we say or else? come on. No law requires you to believe whatever. It is actions that violate laws and if there is one out there that says you have to publically proclaim something as truth it probably violates the 1st amendment. Wouldn't that constitute a thought crime?

KenDckey -> RE: Should companies be prosecuted for not believing in climate Change? (4/4/2016 2:20:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: KenDckey Believe as we say or else? come on. No law requires you to believe whatever. It is actions that violate laws and if there is one out there that says you have to publically proclaim something as truth it probably violates the 1st amendment. That is not what it says, now is it. It says if you are commiting fraud they will be prosecuted. Don't you believe in the rule of law? Actually you left out a couple words there. Please check your quote. Mine was a cut and paste without modification.

thompsonx -> RE: Should companies be prosecuted for not believing in climate Change? (4/4/2016 3:07:03 PM)
ORIGINAL: KenDckey ORIGINAL: thompsonx Believe as we say or else? come on. No law requires you to believe whatever. It is actions that violate laws and if there is one out there that says you have to publically proclaim something as truth it probably violates the 1st amendment. That is not what it says, now is it. It says if you are commiting fraud they will be prosecuted. Don't you believe in the rule of law? Actually you left out a couple words there. Actually I did not leave out anything concerning the crime of fraud which is what they are talking about prosecuting. Remember when the govt sued the tobacco companies for fraud? On August 17, 2006 Judge Kessler issued a 1,683 page opinion holding the tobacco companies liable for violating RICO by fraudulently covering up the health risks associated with smoking and for marketing their products to children. “As set forth in these Final Proposed Findings of Fact, substantial evidence establishes that Defendants have engaged in and executed – and continue to engage in and execute – a massive 50-year scheme to defraud the public, including consumers of cigarettes, in violation of RICO.” The tobacco companies filed an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals. The court granted the motion, and on May 22, 2009 the three-judge panel unanimously upheld Judge Kessler’s decision finding the tobacco companies liable. The court upheld most of the ordered remedies, but denied additional remedies sought by public health interveners and the Department of Justice. The court also found that the First Amendment does not protect fraudulent statements, stating that “Defendants knew of their falsity at the time and made the statements with the intent to deceive. Thus, we are not dealing with accidental falsehoods, or sincere attempts to persuade.” The court dismissed the defendants’ argument that their statements were protected by the First Amendment. http://publichealthlawcenter.org/topics/tobacco-control/tobacco-control-litigation/united-states-v-philip-morris-doj-lawsuit

thompsonx -> RE: Should companies be prosecuted for not believing in climate Change? (4/4/2016 3:08:23 PM)
ORIGINAL: BamaD Wouldn't that constitute a thought crime? Only in the mind of a moron

Lucylastic -> RE: Should companies be prosecuted for not believing in climate Change? (4/4/2016 3:21:44 PM)
oh Ken, I think you are entirely missing the point. so sad. heres a link to the actual information you need. http://ag.ny.gov/press-release/ag-schneiderman-former-vice-president-al-gore-and-coalition-attorneys-general-across Not some freakin idiot blogger who is barely readable let alone agreeable.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Should companies be prosecuted for not believing in climate Change? (4/4/2016 3:43:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey quote: http://dailysignal.com/2016/04/04/16-democrat-ags-begin-inquisition-against-climate-change-disbelievers/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=thf-fb Speaking at a press conference on March 29, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said “The bottom line is simple: Climate change is real.” He went on to say that if companies are committing fraud by “lying” about the dangers of climate change, they will “pursue them to the fullest extent of the law.” The coalition of 17 inquisitors are calling themselves “AGs United for Clean Power.” The coalition consists of 15 state attorneys general (California, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Virginia, Vermont, and Washington State), as well as the attorneys general of the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands. Sixteen of the seventeen members are Democrats, while the attorney general for the Virgin Islands, Claude Walker, is an independent. Believe as we say or else? come on. No law requires you to believe whatever. It is actions that violate laws and if there is one out there that says you have to publically proclaim something as truth it probably violates the 1st amendment. This is dangerous territory. ThompsonX pointed out that if you're committing fraud, you'll be prosecuted. He was right, to an extent. Granted, they are getting to define what is to be considered the truth so that those that don't agree will be "lying" and committing fraud. This stems from Exxon's researchers apparently determining climate change is real and bad, but lying about it to the general public and their shareholders because it would be horrible for the company's bottom line. http://www.albanydailystar.com/science/exxon-mobil-is-being-investigated-of-climate-change-cover-up-jackson-daily-science-8894.html If Exxon is found guilty of committing fraud, it (and whoever is responsible within the company) should be prosecuted and face a punishment that is typical and normal for the wrongdoing.

Phydeaux -> RE: Should companies be prosecuted for not believing in climate Change? (4/4/2016 4:40:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey quote: http://dailysignal.com/2016/04/04/16-democrat-ags-begin-inquisition-against-climate-change-disbelievers/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=thf-fb Speaking at a press conference on March 29, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said “The bottom line is simple: Climate change is real.” He went on to say that if companies are committing fraud by “lying” about the dangers of climate change, they will “pursue them to the fullest extent of the law.” The coalition of 17 inquisitors are calling themselves “AGs United for Clean Power.” The coalition consists of 15 state attorneys general (California, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Virginia, Vermont, and Washington State), as well as the attorneys general of the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands. Sixteen of the seventeen members are Democrats, while the attorney general for the Virgin Islands, Claude Walker, is an independent. Believe as we say or else? come on. No law requires you to believe whatever. It is actions that violate laws and if there is one out there that says you have to publically proclaim something as truth it probably violates the 1st amendment. This is dangerous territory. ThompsonX pointed out that if you're committing fraud, you'll be prosecuted. He was right, to an extent. Granted, they are getting to define what is to be considered the truth so that those that don't agree will be "lying" and committing fraud. This stems from Exxon's researchers apparently determining climate change is real and bad, but lying about it to the general public and their shareholders because it would be horrible for the company's bottom line. http://www.albanydailystar.com/science/exxon-mobil-is-being-investigated-of-climate-change-cover-up-jackson-daily-science-8894.html If Exxon is found guilty of committing fraud, it (and whoever is responsible within the company) should be prosecuted and face a punishment that is typical and normal for the wrongdoing. No, the Exon case is different than you have described. Some people are suing exon saying that exon misled investors as to the safety of their investments when it failed to disclose that climate change was a material threat to their business. Sadly, this is a case where like dominos, it is easier for a company to agree, pay a fine and move on, than it is to contest the suit. What will happen remains to be seen. AGW did not represent a threat to their business 20 years ago. It doesn't represent a threat to their business now. However, democrats do. A properly worded adviso should have contained something along the following: Exon is engaged in the production of fossil fuels, which is politically unpopular among democrats in the US today. As such it is increasingly likely that we will be subjected to continued harassment and frivolous lawsuits, which represent a drain of corporate assets. In addition there is a significant likelihood of an erosion of the rule of law and a pogrom against companies such as Exon... etc.

mnottertail -> RE: Should companies be prosecuted for not believing in climate Change? (4/4/2016 5:00:31 PM)
AGW is not climate change any more than a cigarette is the tobacco industry.

thompsonx -> RE: Should companies be prosecuted for not believing in climate Change? (4/4/2016 7:44:12 PM)
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux No, the Exon case is different than you have described. That would be your ignorant, childish opinion. Some people are suing exon In addition to "some people" there is also the atourney general.[8\|] saying that exon misled investors as to the safety of their investments when it failed to disclose that climate change was a material threat to their business. The a.g. says that their failure to disclose that climate change was a material threat to the planet and that they tried to hide it. That is called fraud. That is a criminal charge is it not? Sadly, this is a case where like dominos, it is easier for a company to agree, pay a fine and move on, than it is to contest the suit. What will happen remains to be seen. What happened to the tobacco companies? AGW did not represent a threat to their business 20 years ago. Perhaps you might get an adult to do the math for you. 1977 is almost 40 years ago not 20. It doesn't represent a threat to their business now. However, democrats do. A properly worded adviso should have contained something along the following: Exon is engaged in the production of fossil fuels, which is politically unpopular among democrats in the US today. As such it is increasingly likely that we will be subjected to continued harassment and frivolous lawsuits, which represent a drain of corporate assets. In addition there is a significant likelihood of an erosion of the rule of law and a pogrom against companies such as Exon... etc. Why is it that you feel that all the problems of the world are caused by demopubs? Oh wait is it because you are a republicrat?[8\|]

KenDckey -> RE: Should companies be prosecuted for not believing in climate Change? (4/5/2016 5:56:21 AM)
Actually guys, I didn't miss the point at all. If a company comits a crime (fraud being the one I am thinking about most, then conspiracy), I of course feel that they should be prosecuted to the extent of the law. But that wasn't my question. If a company doesn't believe the science of climate change and cites some other scientific theory are they lying and if so should they be prosecuted. The AG said that if they mislead the public, according to the science of the AG (presumably), then they should be prosecuted. The press release didn't say that they weren't complying with environmental law, but that if they mislead the public (which I consider scientists that come to conclusiions outside the main stream), they would be prosecuted for fraud (or whatever crime). I looked deeper into it sorry guys, it appears to me to be the thought police in action,. But, I wanted your opinion on it because just where is the crime in not believing and public saying so.

tweakabelle -> RE: Should companies be prosecuted for not believing in climate Change? (4/5/2016 7:00:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri This is dangerous territory. Yes indeed it is dangerous territory. On one hand it could be argued that this issue involves important issues of free speech, the public's right to know and the right to engage in perfectly legal political argument without fear of prosecution. On the other hand, it could be argued that Big Energy has a huge financial interest in ensuring particular political outcomes that are contrary to the public interest and that they knowingly promote falsehoods and lies with the intention of obtaining a financial benefit ie they perpetrate a fraud. For many years, tobacco companies knowingly promoted the notion that smoking didn't cause cancer, even when they were in possession of information and data that led to the opposite conclusion. They deliberately withheld this information and made millions on the back of that deception. The cost to the public, in terms of lives lost and ruined as well as the $ cost, was incalculable but enormous. The benefit to the tobacco companies was also incalculable but huge. To my mind, the tobacco companies perpetrated a gigantic fraud on the public and are legally liable for their actions. Are we going to repeat the mistakes of the tobacco case? The critical fact to be established is this: Is it reasonable for an expert in the field to be of the view that it is a fact that AGW is not human caused? Big Energy companies have the resources to access the best information available so the threshold is that of an expert view, not a reasonably well informed individual view. As the scientific consensus is that human caused AGW is real, and this view is supported by mountains of evidence, it does seem to me that it would be rather difficult for Big Energy to sustain the argument that an independent objective expert in the field would be of an opposite view.

thompsonx -> RE: Should companies be prosecuted for not believing in climate Change? (4/5/2016 8:31:54 AM)
ORIGINAL: KenDckey Actually guys, I didn't miss the point at all. If a company comits a crime (fraud being the one I am thinking about most, then conspiracy), I of course feel that they should be prosecuted to the extent of the law. But that wasn't my question. If a company doesn't believe the science of climate change and cites some other scientific theory are they lying and if so should they be prosecuted. Exxon's company records show that they believe the science of climate change. The AG said that if they mislead the public, according to the science of the AG (presumably), That would be your presumption and not the a.g. then they should be prosecuted. Based on exxon's own research[8\|] The press release didn't say that they weren't complying with environmental law, but that if they mislead the public (which I consider scientists that come to conclusiions outside the main stream), they would be prosecuted for fraud (or whatever crime). I looked deeper into it sorry guys, it appears to me to be the thought police in action,. But, I wanted your opinion on it because just where is the crime in not believing and public saying so. Exxon's own research...duuuhhh[8\|]

Real0ne -> RE: Should companies be prosecuted for not believing in climate Change? (4/5/2016 11:20:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey Actually guys, I didn't miss the point at all. If a company comits a crime (fraud being the one I am thinking about most, then conspiracy), I of course feel that they should be prosecuted to the extent of the law. But that wasn't my question. If a company doesn't believe the science of climate change and cites some other scientific theory are they lying and if so should they be prosecuted. The AG said that if they mislead the public, according to the science of the AG (presumably), then they should be prosecuted. The press release didn't say that they weren't complying with environmental law, but that if they mislead the public (which I consider scientists that come to conclusiions outside the main stream), they would be prosecuted for fraud (or whatever crime). I looked deeper into it sorry guys, it appears to me to be the thought police in action,. But, I wanted your opinion on it because just where is the crime in not believing and public saying so. yep and there is the hook. Its negligence and fraud on its face. da gubmint has to use ALL available science NOT THEIR (cherry picked) SCIENCE to be lawful. 9/11 comes to mind! Its the usual extortionist propaganda we hear so often, I am always amazed that so few people are educated enough to pick up on it.

mnottertail -> RE: Should companies be prosecuted for not believing in climate Change? (4/5/2016 11:29:49 AM)
snicker

thompsonx -> RE: Should companies be prosecuted for not believing in climate Change? (4/5/2016 11:45:03 AM)
Roflmfao

WickedsDesire -> RE: Should companies be prosecuted for not believing in climate Change? (4/5/2016 1:46:53 PM)
I believe all idiots and liars should be prosecuted and I would tar and feather the lot of them. And for the more destructive visit them many times with my knobkerrie and rusty mace of enlightenment then swagger of into the sunset my Pantaloon region bulging All for a lie & they come on all formats...never by me

Phydeaux -> RE: Should companies be prosecuted for not believing in climate Change? (4/5/2016 2:43:13 PM)
Should the matter go to trial, the government will lose, presuming a reasonably evenhanded jury. There is certainly a reasonable doubt that AGW is occuring. It is also certain that what the IPCC describes as AGW is not occuring. Both would be profitable avenues in a courtroom. Second, even if there is global warming, the government would have to prove that carbon emissions cause it. No one has done this to date, and there are several compelling alternate explanations. Third, even if the government were to prove both one and two; it then has to prove deliberate intent. The government would have to prove that the corporation knew that the political situation would develop in such a way that its continued emission of CO2 would cause a material threat to its business - something that hasn't happened in the last 30 years. Saying therefore that Exon committed fraud when actual events matched its internal predictions - would mean no fraud occurred. This is political theater, meant to intimidate opponents of global warming, nothing more. I doubt the AG's could even find a person with standing to sue. What shareholder suffered monetary damage from the alleged failure to disclose the alleged fraud. Uh, no one.

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625