Pandering to your Base

[Section112]

NJ files climate change lawsuit against oil companies

“This lawsuit will seek administrative penalties, compensatory damages, natural resource damages, and punitive damages,” said New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin. “We’ll ask the court to order the defendants to stop their lying and to pay for the costs of their conduct in New Jersey.”

njbiz.com

I wonder why the State of NJ uses gas to fill the tanks of state owned autos and fuel to gas up the state helicopters and planes? Doesn't that make the state of NJ complicit in global warming and some of the worst problems caused by warming like Sandy and other storms? lol

 

[Merge]

I wonder why the State of NJ uses gas to fill the tanks of state owned autos and fuel to gas up the state helicopters and planes? Doesn't that make the state of NJ complicit in global warming and some of the worst problems caused by warming like Sandy and other storms?

The point of the complaint is the the oil companies knew the negative impact they would have, but hid that information and misled the public about the harm which prevented us from transitioning away from decades ago. There is a fair amount of evidence that is all true.

Hard to imagine that they would be able to prove that the damage to liberty state park was a result of that though.

 

[Section112]

The point of the complaint is the the oil companies knew the negative impact they would have, but hid that information and misled the public about the harm which prevented us from transitioning away from decades ago. There is a fair amount of evidence that is all true.

Hard to imagine that they would be able to prove that the damage to liberty state park was a result of that though.

This is a frivolous lawsuit. "Knowingly deceived the public about the existence of climate change?" I guess that implies that the public listens to everything that the oil companies say if that is true and they don't get their news anywhere else? Frivolous and pandering to the base so they can say they did it. The oil companies sell a product. It takes consumers to purchase and buy the product. People know the damage cigarettes can have but they still buy them. People will still purchase gas for many years so will that make oil companies liable for many years? And how about the consumers that purchase that gas? And the state that purchases gas? See where this is going? Let's go after the deep pockets but not who is creating the demand? That equals frivolous. Not to mention that climate change is also created by many, many other things like manufacturing and polluting the air etc.

And tell me again there is not a war going on against the oil companies?

 

[Merge]

The oil companies sell a product. It takes consumers to purchase and buy the product. People know the damage cigarettes can have but they still buy them.

Interesting comparison considering that there have been major cases against tabacco companies, also for lying to the public and hiding the related risks.

People will still purchase gas for many years so will that make oil companies liable for many years? And how about the consumers that purchase that gas? And the state that purchases gas? See where this is going? Let's go after the deep pockets but not who is creating the demand? That equals frivolous

I would disagree with that being what defines frivolous. When companies are the ones lying and hiding the truth about their products, there is some level of liability for them even if the public has become dependent on that product. Individual suits against tabacco companies failed because the people willingly purchased the product, it wasn't until states started suing where they were held liable because the state was an outside party which would have to pay for the related health impacts of citizens smoking.

Not to mention that climate change is also created by many, many other things like manufacturing and polluting the air etc.

This isn't a lawsuit for being a part of the problem. It is a lawsuit for intentionally lying and hiding their impact.

And tell me again there is not a war going on against the oil companies?

On this one, I agree.

 

[shu09]

More big government reaching into everything. Our country is growing more authoritarian by the day.

 

[ed odowd]

No scientific proof oil companies responsible for the debatable conclusion on the damage fossil fuels have done to the climate.Maybe they should decrease oil supply to make the progressives happy,and then see how many democrats cheer
a reduction in oil supply.Suit in New Jersey so likely our liberal Supreme Court will find for plaintiff.Let’s spend trillions to reduce fossil fuels emissions and China and India will increase theur emissions and nothing will change ,but the climate alarmists can pat themselves on the back on their moral superiority while we freeze in the winter and suffer from the heat in the summer.

 

[Merge]

In all seriousness though, assume electric car companies are sitting on data that says if everyone charges at home, cancer rates will go up.
They hide that information from the public and when questioned about the impact they mislead people of not directly lie.

Wouldn’t you want them to be held accountable?

I don’t think this is a winning case because I don’t think they can prove the damage is only the result of fossil fuel emissions but oil companies should face some consequence for lying to the public for decades.

Oil companies will be fine. They will still have record levels of production in the US next year. Just not sure why people root for them.

 

[HALL85]

In all seriousness though, assume electric car companies are sitting on data that says if everyone charges at home, cancer rates will go up.
They hide that information from the public and when questioned about the impact they mislead people of not directly lie.

Wouldn’t you want them to be held accountable?

I don’t think this is a winning case because I don’t think they can prove the damage is only the result of fossil fuel emissions but oil companies should face some consequence for lying to the public for decades.

Oil companies will be fine. They will still have record levels of production in the US next year. Just not sure why people root for them.

Is it rooting for oil or rooting for the public? Anyone who willfully deceives should be held accountable but there is so much that has been politicized, the public will question intent. Cancelling Keystone, making oil the enemy and having no strategy with the Saudi’s has all hurt the public.

 

[shu09]

This is entirely political and agenda-driven. It is designed to demonize big companies and gain votes from stupid people. Amazing how human beings think they can alter the climate by attacking companies that have been huge supporters of American industry. America would not be where it is without fossil fuels.

 

[shu09]

In all seriousness though, assume electric car companies are sitting on data that says if everyone charges at home, cancer rates will go up.
They hide that information from the public and when questioned about the impact they mislead people of not directly lie.

Wouldn’t you want them to be held accountable?

I don’t think this is a winning case because I don’t think they can prove the damage is only the result of fossil fuel emissions but oil companies should face some consequence for lying to the public for decades.

Oil companies will be fine. They will still have record levels of production in the US next year. Just not sure why people root for them.

No.

1) Fossil fuels are a primary reason Americans enjoy the standard of living that they do. Our economy would not be the same without these companies.

2) There is zero proof that oil companies are changing the weather, nor that they are hiding information. Earth warms and cools in natural cycles over thousands of years. This new political phenomenon called "climate change" is a concoction by the ruling class to increase government power over the middle and lower classes.

 

[Section112]

Well the EV batteries can be extremely dangerous when they go on fire. We know that now. Some homes and parking garages and even bridges have been destroyed. It’s a risk. Risks in everything we do in fact. It will be interesting what they come up with. They will have to prove global warming first if this is their approach.

 

[HALL85]

https://nypost.com/2022/10/06/electric-vehicles-catching-fire-in-florida-after-hurricane-ian/

 

[Merge]

Is it rooting for oil or rooting for the public?

Oil.

You can root for the public outside of having loyalty to the oil industry. We should have been preparing for a shift away from oil for the last several decades. The public was convinced that is a bad idea for some reason.

 

[Merge]

1) Fossil fuels are a primary reason Americans enjoy the standard of living that they do. Our economy would not be the same without these companies.

No one has implied otherwise.

2) There is zero proof that oil companies are changing the weather, nor that they are hiding information. Earth warms and cools in natural cycles over thousands of years. This new political phenomenon called "climate change" is a concoction by the ruling class to increase government power over the middle and lower classes.

The part that you are missing is that before you and I were born, the oil company scientists believed that burning oil would result in a global temperature increases and shifts in weather patterns. There is a memo from Exxon's top scientist in 1977 that said this would result in excess rains in areas not used to that and droughts in other areas noting the potential agricultural impacts that we have been seeing all over the globe.

THEY believed it was going to happen and they hid that from the public. They spent billions campaigning on the idea that wasn't going to happen so the public would not support moving away from a reliance on oil.

 

[Merge]

Well the EV batteries can be extremely dangerous when they go on fire. We know that now. Some homes and parking garages and even bridges have been destroyed. It’s a risk. Risks in everything we do in fact. It will be interesting what they come up with. They will have to prove global warming first if this is their approach.

Buying right into that narrative.

Neither are risk free, but proportionally there is a much greater risk of an internal combustion engine catching fire than a EV.

 

[ed odowd]

Don’t know in all seriousness how solar, windmills etc. are going to provide enough energy to power the world at anytime.Oil and natural gas prices this winter will dampen the enthusiasm of the lukewarm climate alarmists while the nut jobs keep chirping.

 

[HALL85]

Oil.

You can root for the public outside of having loyalty to the oil industry. We should have been preparing for a shift away from oil for the last several decades. The public was convinced that is a bad idea for some reason.

The public doesn’t think it’s a bad idea. The question is at what speed and ensuring our energy needs are not compromised (meeting demand, costs, global threats).

 

[shu09]

THEY believed it was going to happen and they hid that from the public. They spent billions campaigning on the idea that wasn't going to happen so the public would not support moving away from a reliance on oil.

Even if that's true (I doubt it), so what? Cost of doing business. You'd also have to prove the cover up.

 

[Merge]

Even if that's true (I doubt it), so what? Cost of doing business. You'd also have to prove the cover up.

Hiding and misleading about the the impacts of what they believed were going to happen result in devastating impacts around the world and your response is so what?

The forgotten oil ads that told us climate change was nothing

Since the 1980s, fossil fuel firms have run ads touting climate denial messages – many of which they’d now like us to forget. Here’s our visual guide

www.theguardian.com

Accept Terms and Conditions on JSTOR

JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary sources.

www.jstor.org

"A 1998 GCST task force memo outlined an explicit strategy to invest millions of dollars to manufacture uncertainty on the issue of global warming—a strategy that directly emulated Big Tobacco’s disinformation campaign. Despite mounting scientific evidence of the changing climate, the goal the team outlined was simple and familiar. As the memo put it, “Victory will be achieved when average citizens understand (recognize) uncertainties in climate science” and when public “recognition of uncertainty becomes part of the ‘conventional wisdom.’”

 

[Section112]

Buying right into that narrative.

Neither are risk free, but proportionally there is a much greater risk of an internal combustion engine catching fire than a EV.

Nope. I was a first responder for a long time. I know first responders have to get different training to respond to accidents with EVs due to the risk of electrocution which never existed with combustion engines and because they burn hotter when they catch on fire. EV batteries cause different risks. I never said they are better or worse than a combustion engine. Don't put words in my mouth. But the risks are real enough that Chevy has had significant problems with fires related to the Volt. I guess CNBC agrees there could be a problem.

And it sunk a ship filled with EV Volkswagens in the middle of the Atlantic. It is a real issue for first responders and its much harder to put the fires out because it burns hotter. Does it make it better or worse? Not enough data out there yet because the industry is so young. But if you charge your EV in your garage, you have risk.

 

[shu09]

Hiding and misleading about the the impacts of what they believed were going to happen result in devastating impacts around the world and your response is so what?

The forgotten oil ads that told us climate change was nothing

Since the 1980s, fossil fuel firms have run ads touting climate denial messages – many of which they’d now like us to forget. Here’s our visual guide

www.theguardian.com

Accept Terms and Conditions on JSTOR

JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary sources.

www.jstor.org

"A 1998 GCST task force memo outlined an explicit strategy to invest millions of dollars to manufacture uncertainty on the issue of global warming—a strategy that directly emulated Big Tobacco’s disinformation campaign. Despite mounting scientific evidence of the changing climate, the goal the team outlined was simple and familiar. As the memo put it, “Victory will be achieved when average citizens understand (recognize) uncertainties in climate science” and when public “recognition of uncertainty becomes part of the ‘conventional wisdom.’”

I disagree with your entire premise. I don't believe natural changes in climate are caused by humans. Bad weather has happened since the earth was formed. The only difference now is humans and their unlimited arrogance/ego feel they should be entitled to relief from bad weather.

 

[Merge]

Nope. I was a first responder for a long time. I know first responders have to get different training to respond to accidents with EVs due to the risk of electrocution which never existed with combustion engines and because they burn hotter when they catch on fire. EV batteries cause different risks. I never said they are better or worse than a combustion engine. Don't put words in my mouth. But the risks are real enough that Chevy has had significant problems with fires related to the Volt. I guess CNBC agrees there could be a problem.

View embedded media

And it sunk a ship filled with EV Volkswagens in the middle of the Atlantic. It is a real issue for first responders and its much harder to put the fires out because it burns hotter. Does it make it better or worse? Not enough data out there yet because the industry is so young. But if you charge your EV in your garage, you have risk.

My apologies for reading too much into your post.
Fairly unlikely to happen, but it is a risk.

 

[Merge]

I disagree with your entire premise. I don't believe natural changes in climate are caused by humans. Bad weather has happened since the earth was formed. The only difference now is humans and their unlimited arrogance/ego feel they should be entitled to relief from bad weather.

You're free to your opinion.
In his 1977 paper, Exxon's James Black, a senior scientist noted that there was a normal fluctuation of about 0.7 degrees in temperature over the last 1,000 years but also noted that burning fossil fuels was expected to increase that fluctuation to 2-3 degrees...

https://insideclimatenews.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/James-Black-1977-Presentation.pdf

He was right and that is the general consensus of the scientific community as well. Not sure why you're convinced otherwise. Probably something to do with the billions of dollars that oil companies have spent to convince you.

 

[anon_ezos2e9wn1ob0]

You're free to your opinion.
In his 1977 paper, Exxon's James Black, a senior scientist noted that there was a normal fluctuation of about 0.7 degrees in temperature over the last 1,000 years but also noted that burning fossil fuels was expected to increase that fluctuation to 2-3 degrees...

https://insideclimatenews.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/James-Black-1977-Presentation.pdf

He was right and that is the general consensus of the scientific community as well. Not sure why you're convinced otherwise. Probably something to do with the billions of dollars that oil companies have spent to convince you.

Still think you're gonna get thru to the guy who was ridiculing Sandy Hook parents the other day? Save your breath Lol

 

[shu09]

Still think you're gonna get thru to the guy who was ridiculing Sandy Hook parents the other day? Save your breath Lol

lol.... Never said anything negative about Sandy Hook parents. In fact, if you actually read what I said, you'll find that I said I don't think their reputations were damaged by what some crazy man on the radio said about them. I even said there was a case for harassment, as the jury found in the civil suit.

Alex Jones

Deserving of judgment against him or no?

setonhall.forums.rivals.com

 

[Merge]

Still think you're gonna get thru to the guy who was ridiculing Sandy Hook parents the other day? Save your breath Lol

For some reason he is caught up in the fact that natural cycles exist and extends that to believe that man can’t possibly have an impact. I don’t expect him to take my word for it, but maybe I can provide enough doubt where he would look into the issue more. Maybe that’s too optimistic though.

 

[anon_ezos2e9wn1ob0]

lol.... Never said anything negative about Sandy Hook parents. In fact, if you actually read what I said, you'll find that I said I don't think their reputations were damaged by what some crazy man on the radio said about them. I even said there was a case for harassment, as the jury found in the civil suit.

Alex Jones

Deserving of judgment against him or no?

setonhall.forums.rivals.com

Apologies, I meant Parkland parents. My point still stands.

 

[shu09]

For some reason he is caught up in the fact that natural cycles exist and extends that to believe that man can’t possibly have an impact. I don’t expect him to take my word for it, but maybe I can provide enough doubt where he would look into the issue more. Maybe that’s too optimistic though.

You know what's even crazier than thinking humans are changing earth's climate? Believing they can do anything about it or stop it.

 

[anon_ezos2e9wn1ob0]

For some reason he is caught up in the fact that natural cycles exist and extends that to believe that man can’t possibly have an impact. I don’t expect him to take my word for it, but maybe I can provide enough doubt where he would look into the issue more. Maybe that’s too optimistic though.

Yes, humans could never impact our climate by pumping mass pollution into the air, trapping carbon and heating the earth!

 

[Merge]

You know what's even crazier than thinking humans are changing earth's climate? Believing they can do anything about it or stop it.

and you’re basing that on your expertise or because you believe what you want regardless of what any actual experts in the field believe?

 

[shu09]

and you’re basing that on your expertise or because you believe what you want regardless of what any actual experts in the field believe?

I really don't care what "experts" think. Countless have been proven wrong in various fields time and time again. Science is an ever evolving process. Most of your so-called "experts" are also in the pocket of various special interests.

 

[Merge]

I really don't care what "experts" think. Countless have been proven wrong in various fields time and time again. Science is an ever evolving process. Most of your so-called "experts" are also in the pocket of various special interests.

Do you think it is a reasonable position to have when there is nothing that would change your opinion?

The sad thing is that I have you a paper from Exxon’s scientist. Someone literally in the pocket of oil companies who in 1977 said what is happening now would happen.

You believe that the arguments against your opinion, coming from the vast majority of scientists are just in the pocket of special interests.. and instead believe the data which has been coming from the oil companies who said their “victory” was making you believe the science here isn’t settled.

There should always be something that would make you rethink your belief for any issue.

 

[shu09]

You'll need much more than a nearly 50 year old hypothesis to change my view on this.

 

[Merge]

You'll need much more than a nearly 50 year old hypothesis to change my view on this.

Indeed. There are thousands and thousands of peer reviewed studies that agree though.

 

[SHallguy2]

Both sides of this debate are true. On one hand we need to do whatever is possible to reduce our carbon footprint. On the other hand we all live on one planet, if we don’t manufactured things in the USA doesn't mean we are not polluting somewhere else on the planet when we buy stuff from China? There are more countries in the world that do not care about the environment than those who do care. To think that buying oil from the Middle East is somehow better than producing it here is foolish. We could literally throw all the money in the world at this problem and still not be able to solve it. Sad but true. Look at all the cars with one person inside. Most people are too stupid to even car pool. Gas is $7 a gallon in CA. and people still drive to work alone. My point, I don’t think we can stop whatever is going to happen, but I will continue to do my part and glad others are as well.

 

[HALL85]

Both sides of this debate are true. On one hand we need to do whatever is possible to reduce our carbon footprint. On the other hand we all live on one planet, if we don’t manufactured things in the USA doesn't mean we are not polluting somewhere else on the planet when we buy stuff from China? There are more countries in the world that do not care about the environment than those who do care. To think that buying oil from the Middle East is somehow better than producing it here is foolish. We could literally throw all the money in the world at this problem and still not be able to solve it. Sad but true. Look at all the cars with one person inside. Most people are too stupid to even car pool. Gas is $7 a gallon in CA. and people still drive to work alone. My point, I don’t think we can stop whatever is going to happen, but I will continue to do my part and glad others are as well.

Exactly...essentially we need two things and then try to do our best:
1) Personal responsibility (like you said)....which means when I see someone (politician, celebrity, etc.) preaching about climate change and then getting on a private jet...my response is STFU.
2) Energy strategy. Government shouldn't pick winners and losers. EV's are not the answer to all of our problems. We need an energy strategy (that includes nuclear) that ensures we have options, affordability, security, a level of independence, etc.) No country has the perfect answer. but we are seeing the result of government over-reach and partisan politics.

We should be in a much better place and have a much better path when it comes to energy....but we don't.

 

[anon_ezos2e9wn1ob0]

Both sides of this debate are true. On one hand we need to do whatever is possible to reduce our carbon footprint. On the other hand we all live on one planet, if we don’t manufactured things in the USA doesn't mean we are not polluting somewhere else on the planet when we buy stuff from China? There are more countries in the world that do not care about the environment than those who do care. To think that buying oil from the Middle East is somehow better than producing it here is foolish. We could literally throw all the money in the world at this problem and still not be able to solve it. Sad but true. Look at all the cars with one person inside. Most people are too stupid to even car pool. Gas is $7 a gallon in CA. and people still drive to work alone. My point, I don’t think we can stop whatever is going to happen, but I will continue to do my part and glad others are as well.

USA is #1 oil producer by a long shot. This argument that were not pumping oil is stupid.

 

[HALL85]

USA is #1 oil producer by a long shot. This argument that were not pumping oil is stupid.

We have had gas prices skyrocket and expect to see prices go back up significantly very soon. We are not pumping enough oil on our own.

 

[Merge]

Both sides of this debate are true. On one hand we need to do whatever is possible to reduce our carbon footprint. On the other hand we all live on one planet, if we don’t manufactured things in the USA doesn't mean we are not polluting somewhere else on the planet when we buy stuff from China? There are more countries in the world that do not care about the environment than those who do care.

Electricity from renewable sources in China is 4x what it is in the US.
The share of renewable electricity generation as a proportion or all sources is 10% higher than it is in the US.

And we are the ones who care about the environment?

To think that buying oil from the Middle East is somehow better than producing it here is foolish

I don't know anyone who believes that. Part of the point of moving towards developing renewables in the US is to reduce our reliance on foreign sources of energy. No one wants to produce less here to buy more elsewhere.

We could literally throw all the money in the world at this problem and still not be able to solve it. Look at all the cars with one person inside. Most people are too stupid to even car pool. Gas is $7 a gallon in CA. and people still drive to work alone. My point, I don’t think we can stop whatever is going to happen, but I will continue to do my part and glad others are as well.

I'm not as pessimistic. We could solve the problem if we really wanted to. The public just isn't on board with seeing it as a problem.

 

[Merge]

We have had gas prices skyrocket and expect to see prices go back up significantly very soon. We are not pumping enough oil on our own.

2022 will have the second highest amount of US oil production ever. 2023 is expected be the highest.
In July we just set a new record for the amount of oil we exported.

US oil production is not a problem. We are producing plenty.