ExxonMobil and Climate Change: A Story of Denial, Delay, and Delusion, Told in Forms 10-K (2009-2015) September 8, 2016

"This tedious but insightful exercise is part of a CSPW investigation that parallels important ongoing criminal investigations being conducted by several state attorneys general; and a growing body of reports by universities, investigative journalists, not-for-profit organizations, and others addressing Exxon’s internal understanding of the threats to its own operations and profitability relating to a host of global warming impacts now worsening, relative to how it has communicated these threats to its investors and the public over time."

"If it can be proved that the corporate leadership at Exxon, which merged with the Mobil Corporation in 1998 to become ExxonMobil, committed fraud by deliberately deceiving shareholders and failing to properly disclose risk factors that would materially compromise stock value, then corporate leadership should be held accountable and justice sought. It’s that simple."

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2016/09/08/exxonmobil-and-climate-change-a-story-of-denial-delay-and-delusion-told-in-forms-10-k-2009-2015/

Does the IPA support such investigations to ensure the protection of Shareholders / Superannuation Funds?

Is or has the IPA obtained any funding connected in any way to ExxonMobil to continue it's anti-science campaign or employing unqualified denialists like Marohasy who has essentially accused the BOM, IPCC and NASA/GISS of fraud?

ref: "I don't believe that NASA and the IPCC are faking the data: I provide compelling evidence to show this. Indeed, they, and the Bureau of Meteorology here in Australia, are extensively remodelling original temperature series so that they fit the theory of anthropogenic global warming."
Posted by Jennifer, Thursday, 18 August 2016 6:32:07 PM"
URL Ref: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18459&page=0#327799

NOTE:
"ExxonMobil and its apologists, including some elected officials and groups that have accepted money from the corporation, posit these legitimate inquiries as infringements on First Amendment rights to free speech."

"This assertion is contrived and a deliberate distraction intended to avert attention away from the corporation’s alleged culpability."

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, conducting a robust investigation into ExxonMobil, says it right: “The First Amendment doesn’t give you the right to commit fraud.”

I'd say Australian Law doesn't give anyone the right to commit Fraud or Defamation either.

Oh dear, it seems that Mr O' is becoming increasingly deranged.

That's to be expected.

Mr O' s modus operandi is to assert some special understanding and seek to demonstrate it by showing all sorts of entirely or almost entirely irrelevant links while at the same time declining to even try to provide logical argument that those links support their claims or substantiates their claimed special understanding. Such people are used to or hope to get away with this, thus puffing up their obviously low self-esteem. And when that is challenged and they get hits to their fragile self-esteem they become deranged and resort to childish name calling and tantrums.

I've seen the likes of Mr O' before and it always goes this way. They aren't mentally capable of sustaining an argument and hate that they are shown to be other what what they claim to be - ie informed. The next step will be that Mr O' will exit the 'discussion' while throwing bombs on the way out. But he'll be back at some future time, with a new nickname but the same childish MO.

Its been my aim from the moment I read his first silly post to facilitate his derangement and ultimate exit. I think we're nearly there.

The global models are good for global matters like worldwide climate trends. The regional climate models are better at mapping out extreme weather events for REGIONS.

“There is also a global to regional perspective, assessing the extent to which not just global mean changes but also spatial patterns of change across the globe can be attributed to anthropogenic and natural forcings.”
P872

“Consistent with previous Assessments and the majority of the literature, this chapter adopts this conservative emphasis. It should, however, be borne in mind that this means that positive attribution results will tend to be biased towards well-observed, well-modelled variables and regions, which should be taken into account in the compilation of global impact assessments (Allen, 2011; Trenberth, 2011a).”
P878

You wouldn't want urban heat island effect just smoothed into the global models, would you? Want taken into account? Try bottom of page 878 for REGIONAL discussion on that.

“Third, forcings omitted in some global climate model simulations may be important on regional scales, such as land use change or BC aerosol. “
P899

“10.7.2 Changes of Past Regional Temperature
There is also substantial literature suggesting solar influences on regional climate reconstructions, possibly due to circulation changes, for example, changes in Northern Annular Modes”
P919

Which is better, global or local? It depends what you're discussing. The two scales interact, with global warming having local and regional effects, and regional events like volcanoes or ice-melting feedbacks also have some input into global models.

Also important is the probabilistic method since AR4, although I'm not strong on the math for that.

Bottom line? The report says more than your cherrypicked chunks. It actually concluded that extreme weather events will increase. Likely. Or do you only read what you want, and just magik the negative stuff away? ;-)

bigmouth mentions the investigation of Exxon Mobil. He seems ignorant of the fact that this has no effect on the company’s status. It is innocent until something is proven.
The attorney general, Schneiderman, enlisted a few state attoneys to associate themselves with him, and they now want out of the arrangement.
”just about everyone thinks Schneiderman is on very flimsy legal ground. Columbia Law Professor Merritt B. Fox published an op-ed in the National Law Journal with a scathing review of Schneiderman’s use of the Martin Act to investigate ExxonMobil, noting,
“The Martin Act grants the attorney general extraordinary powers to subpoena private documents without either obtaining a court order, which is required in most ordinary New York criminal proceedings, or the filing of a complaint, which is required in an ordinary civil action and is subject to court review. The Exxon subpoena is an abuse of these extraordinary powers.” (emphasis added)”
https://energyindepth.org/national/schneiderman-changes-justification-for-exxonknew-investigation/
Schneiderman’s improper actions are linked to the fact that he is motivated by correspondence from environmentalists, and not by an intention to do his job properly.
Just another irrelevancy by bigmouth.

JaneP

Well said.

Thomas, posts ago said he could do ad hominem; he has. He has thrown a mirror on commentary by Leo Lane and mhaze; they don't like it.

It is extremely naive to believe that huge companies such as ExxonMobil use ethics or morals in determining how they will operate.

Prior to retiring, Ken Cohen an ExxonMobil Executive, admitted that ExxonMobil had resourced denier groups and supported the science of their Professional scientific workers.

Rex Tillerson, current CEO of ExxonMobil has stated that fossil fuels cause damage to the atmosphere.

There is a paper trail showing how over 30 milliom dollars had been provided to denier groups.

The alleged criminal actions against ExxonMobil are in relation to how mutually exclusive messages were being put to financial markets.

Jane,

Have you read Mr O' s posts. Do so and then come back and tell us if you think they were appropriate and attacking him was inappropriate.

And then we can decide whether your concern is about the proprietaries or just about supporting one side.