What else is there to take away from this?
Michael Warren, a writer for The Weekly Standard, argued to Fox News on Thursday that the Department of Justice would be wrong to pursue a racketeering case against ExxonMobil for denying climate change because the company had a free speech right to say whatever it wanted. (snip)
“They said that assertion — the 97 percent — comes from a handful of surveys, and abstract counting exercises that have contradicted by more reliable research,†the Fox News host (Heather Childers) explained. “So if the science is still in question, how could you take this to the level of breaking the law?â€
“Even if 99.9 percent of all scientist agreed on this,†Warren opined, “the First Amendment protects your right to have a different opinion or to look at different evidence, and say something differently. I mean, that’s what the First Amendment is about.â€
Well, can’t have Free Speech, right? In Warmist World, Wrongthink is not allowed, and must be banned. Free Speech? Pffft. Suspend the Constitution for this. Warmists tend to show their ugly little fascist sides quite often.
Let’s not forget, there is not 97% consensus. That paper has been thoroughly debunked.
Teach the 1st Anendment has restrictions
In this case Exxon is attempting to defraud shareholders by denying what 97% of climatologists believe to be a fact
This is similar to the denials of big tobacco in regards to the dangers of smoking
Big tobacco lied and fossil fuel companies are continuing to deny. Interestingly enough the biggest shill for big tobacco was the Heartland Institute the same guys leading the climate change truthers
Teach do you believe that corporations MUST be truthful to their shareholders about potential future problems that could adversely effect shareholder value?
Do you think that your own addiction could have been prevented if tobacco companies had told the truth ?
A statement that is simply not true.
It is similar if and only if you ignore the facts of the tobacco case and the alleged case against Exxon. The only real similarity is that the cases are about money as much as anything. In the tobacco cases, the governments and states squandered the money they extorted and only 14% of it goes to where the agreement says it is supposed to go.
There is no such law that requires companies to look into the future.
Do you think that the government should disclose its drive to only finance research that supports it suppositions?
Why are leftist against legitimate free speech and differences of opinion?
Interesting how this is the first thing John goes to. It’s almost like Leftists want to restrict speech they disagree with.
Interestingly, that 97% thing is, itself, a fraud. Furthermore, I don’t see Exxon shareholders having a problem. Are you a shareholder? If you’re not, what business is it of yours? If you are, then you are a climahypocrite.
A tiny bit of warming will not affect share prices.
“Exxon is attempting… to deny what 97% of climatologists believe to be a fact.” First of all, they weren’t all climatologists, second, the 97% claim has been throughly debunked. And third, it doesn’t matter what they “think”. Other than that Johnny, another bang-up job posting.