Posted on 11/07/2015 7:15:08 AM PST by bestintxas
At the behest of radical environmentalists, Democrats on the House Oversight and Government Reform committee are pushing the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Justice Department to investigate ExxonMobil for its views on climate change. Exxon’s crime? During the 20 years the company has employed scientists to analyze the science and potential risks of climate change, some of those scientists concluded humans were causing potentially dangerous warming while others concluded humans were not causing a global warming crisis. Tolerating disagreement and making tough business decisions is not lying, but rather prudence. As Heartland Institute Senior Fellow James Taylor, my colleague, so eloquently put it:
Exxon’s top management received differing opinions on global warming. No matter which way they decided the issue, they would be agreeing with some of their consulting scientists and disagreeing with others. To say that Exxon management covered up or lied about global warming because some of their scientists agreed with them and others disagreed is like saying the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is covering up and lying about global warming because some of IPCC’s own scientists disagree with the assertion of IPCC’s top brass that humans are causing a global warming crisis.
At every turn, climate alarmists have been wrong and climate skeptics proven right. Exxon’s conclusion during the 1980s has subsequently been validated by real-world climate observations. Climate models say temperatures should climb right along with the rise in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, yet emissions rose from the 1940s through the 1970s while temperatures fell. For the past two decades CO2 emissions have continued to rise, yet temperatures have been in a holding pattern for 18 years.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
From article:
"When asked by a shareholder in March of this year, shortly before another round of shareholder resolutions concerning climate change went down to defeat, why Exxon had not increased its investments in renewable energy, ExxonMobil Chairman Rex Tillerson responded, “We choose not to lose money on purpose.â€"
The back story: Exxon had withdrawn its contributions to the Clinton Foundation.
What is the cause of action? I think it’s securities fraud under New York’s Martin Act.
How does Exxon’s opinion on AGW affect it’s stock offerings? And is it so surprising that some of Exxon’s scientists thought (and wrote) that GW was a concern, while others did not? Calling this concealment is basically elevating GW believe to an unquestionable level, and treating alternate speech or actions as “thoughtcrime” (thanks Orwell).
And, yes, I don’t believe it’s a coincidence that this action commenced after contributions to Hillary Clinton’s slush foundation ceased.
Maybe buy a few shares?
Yes, I was going to post that was their crime.
Exxon is a gold-plated Dividend machine. few stocks do better over time that are this secure.
Exactly. That is what happened. Exxon stopped giving money to the Clinton Foundation and, subsequently, found themselves under investigation for exercising free thought and free speech.
Exxon’s response
http://www.exxonmobilperspectives.com/2015/11/05/a-case-for-readers-to-read-for-themselves/
They are P***** off as Exxon cut off funding the Klinton Foundation.
“The back story: Exxon had withdrawn its contributions to the Clinton Foundation.”
I believe the correct complaint would have been from shareholders demanding why their money was being spent on a crooked enterprise to begin with.
“This government is out of control. “
I include Congress in that as they are charged per their oath of office to control an unconstitutional executive branch.
No, they aren’t being investigated for their prudence. They are being investigated because Hillary requested the investigation, a few months after EXXON stopped donating to the Bill and Hill Foundation.
“No, they aren’t being investigated for their prudence. “
I suggest they did not exercise prudence in contributing to the Bill & Hill slush fund in the first place.
Oil companies are always trying to get into crony partnerships wherever it seems advantageous.
“Oil companies are always trying to get into crony partnerships wherever it seems advantageous.”
And pray tell what type of company does not do that if it is indeed advantageous to them?
You must have an agenda, eh?
Your misunderstanding is near total
Joint ventures put together companies to develop profits utilizing the expertise of both companies
Of course anti business left wingers and some antibusiness conservatives have difficulty comprehending the concept
I have seen the “ cooperative efforts of big oil and government , up close and personal. My husband worked in it for 37 years and works as a consultant.
The efforts of BP to ingratiate themselves with the local left actually crossed the line to illegal. I didn’t know that it was illegal when I explained send it at a county council meeting, I just thought is was an effort to influence partisan politics. ...it was illegal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.