Any court cases against Exxon will probably go the same way as the anti-tobacco case where the US Surgeon General refused to accept the claim that smoking was officially harmful as should be banned. All subsequent anti-smoking legislation was based on behaviourable restrictions rather than health-based ones. The science was deliberately "blurred" by interested parties.

Meanwhile -
"A 2007 report offers the most comprehensive documentation to date of how ExxonMobil has adopted the tobacco industry's disinformation tactics, as well as some of the same organizations and personnel, to cloud the scientific understanding of climate change and delay action on the issue.
ExxonMobil has funneled nearly $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science.

The oil company, like the tobacco industry in previous decades, has

1. Raised doubts about even the most indisputable scientific evidence
2. Funded an array of front organizations to create the appearance of a broad platform for a tight-knit group of vocal climate change contrarians who misrepresent peer-reviewed scientific findings
3. Attempted to portray its opposition to action as a positive quest for "sound science" rather than business self-interest
4. Used its access to the Bush administration to block federal policies and shape government communications on global warming"

https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf

I don't claim to "know" AGW is real but on the basis of probablity and plain old common sense I accept it is more likely than some sort of global conspiracy by scientists to obtain ongoing grant funding or an attempt to create a World Government or any of the other half-baked reasons out there.
I don't accept that increasing extreme weather events are spontaneous and natural in origin or due to sunspot activity or that any change in climate is suddenly happening for entirely no reason.

I also accept that nothing significant is likely to happen - at least in the short term - and one way or another we have sealed our own fate. I won't be around to see how things work out but my decendents will.

Toni, what I am trying to say, rather awkwardly I might add, is, I stuffed up. I did not pay close attention to the authors names on each post. I only realised that there is a Toni and a Tony. That's the crux of my comment re; Ton?. That's all.

Tony153: Listen to financial organisations demanding Climate Change risks be addressed,

Your post has hit the nail on the head. Big Business isn’t worried about how CC will affect people, they are worried about their bottom line & investments. Places like Manhattan that are worth millions of Dollars per Square Metre will lose their value. Millionaires who have large waterfront Mansions will find their properties worthless.

TL: the history of science is just a long litany of people getting things wrong...

I read an article by a scientist researcher. His findings on Dogs. Method: Catch a dog. Restrain the Dog in a Clamp. Use a mechanical hand to pat the dog on the head. Come back in the morning to see if the Dog liked being patted on the head. Conclusion, “Dogs don’t like being patted on the head.”

My conclusion, some scientists are just plain wacky. Mostly lefty, Greenie, Socialists.

Rache: I accept it is more likely than some sort of global conspiracy by scientists to obtain ongoing grant funding

Yep, that’s what I recon.

Of course it has to do with money. I was treating this topic with the usual scrutinee and skepticism. Then the name APRA was mentioned and suddenly I saw red. One of the most vial and scumbag organisations ever contrived by a govt. APRA is described as the banks watchdog. It's supposed to keep the bastards honest. Unfortunately, they are govt's puppets, and recently put us all at financial risk. Going off topic for a moment. The govt just pushed through a bill when there was a handfull of ministers sitting. The bill allows the banks to take money from depositors accounts, without our knowledge, to prop up the bank, should it get into a situation where it might fail. Now I don't give a rats if the banks fail, and I can't see how anyone can justify stealing from the public to save a bloody bank from collapse. I actually would prefer the banks to drop dead and suffer a very painful fate after the pain and suffering they have caused people. Anyway, I strongly believe that we are always the victim of some distant and unreachable force keeping us just where they want us, so they can manipulate us at their leisure. (Rothschild?, the bilderberg group?, the elite?)

Toni,

Setting up a SEP field only makes sense when there's a 'P'. No point creating the SEP to hide the alien ship hovering over the cricket ground if the alien ship ain't there.

"What happens if it all goes pear-shaped? "

Doctor to patient: yes that paper cut on your pinky has become infected.

Patient: so what are we gunna do about it.

DR: well antibiotics might work but there's a chance it'll turn gangrenous so I think we should take your hand off at the wrist

Patient: isn't that a bit alarmist. Can't we wait and see what happens.

DR: well we could wait but "if it all goes pear-shaped" then we'll have to take the whole arm. Best to be safe.

Adopting a precautionary attitude is fine if there are no or only minor costs involved. But upending our economies to cut emissions isn't cost free. Witness the increased power costs. Witness Adani. Of coarse, the costs aren't borne evenly but if it costs others then clearly the costs are a SEP. The people of Batman are more than willing to pay the costs of closing Adani because it'll be the people of FNQ who'll pay those costs.

And that's not even the half of it. Reducing emissions in defence of Gaia will be bad for some in the developed world. But it'll be disastrous for many in the developing and undeveloped world. But some are perfectly happy that those others pay the costs so that they can get the warm inner-glow or doing something for the planet.

My view is that there is enormous uncertainty about the real dangers here and there is plenty of time to wait and see if the infection clears up before talking the hand. The purported dangers won't occur for 5- 9 decades (if ever) and in the meantime we can afford to wait and see what happens. And then, if we need to do something when the science is less uncertain, we, or our grandkids will be in a much better position to do so,

Rache,

So no acknowledgement that you got it wrong on the meaning of the 97% meme? Disappointing. Not surprising..but disappointing.

When I suggested that you ought to ponder what else you been misled about, #ExxonKnew was one such thing. A coupla years ago 'ant' who now goes by Tony153 was all cock-a-hoop about the Exxon 'revelations'. At the time I encouraged him to read the actual Exxon papers to learn why the hype put out by the alarmists was wrong. He refused to do so. I urge you to do so if you've the slightest interest in understanding why Exxon won't be found guilty. Hint:what's been reported is not at all what the Exxon papers say.

At the time I opined that the loyal followers of the consensus would, when Exxon was found innocent of the claims, assert that it proved that the system protected them. And there you are doing so.
If Exxon is found guilt it proves they were wrong and if they're found innocent it proves they were wrong, n'est pas?

Standard alarmism:

Floods = AGW
Drought = AGW
Heavy Snow = AGW
No snow = AGW
Warming = AGW
cooling = AGW
Guilty/not guilty...same result.

That's not science.

"increasing extreme weather events "

That's another area you might like to ponder as to whether you were misled. Perhaps start by checking the last IPCC report which spent a lot of time explaining how they have "low confidence" that extreme events were increasing and trying to correct their (now) false claims from prior reports.Or check out Munich Re who were the most vocal insurance company pushing the extreme weather meme who now admit "The blanket statement that weather-dependent damages worldwide show a climate signal cannot be supported”

...if you're interested in the facts that is.