3 ms·

Hasn't Exxon been rather profitable for the last 40 years? How have the investors of 1979 lost out? In any case, my understanding is that all of Exxon's resea

Hasn't Exxon been rather profitable for the last 40 years? How have the investors of 1979 lost out? In any case, my understanding is that all of Exxon's research was publicly available, so investors could look at it and judge for themselves what they thought the risks were. The idea that Exxon executives were supposed to make their own scientific determination regarding the magnitude of the effect of CO2 on climate - an issue that has since then been the subject of 40 years of intensive debate in the scientific community - is absurd. Yes, absurd. This is not a good-faith law suit. It is political intimidation and extortion.

bdamm 7y ago
Exxon has been profitable but they allegedly did it by committing fraud. They allegedly knew the magnitude of the effect of CO2 on climate, and allegedly conspired to cover it up. Part of the reason there is "intensive debate" is because of Exxon's cover up. It wouldn't have been much of a debate without it. Therefore, Exxon was purposefully redirecting the efforts of investors to understand the risks that the company faced.
- radford-neal 7y ago
  The suit alleges that the investors were defrauded - not the public, or some such. (That would also be absurd, but it isn't relevant anyway, so no point arguing about it.) But the investors made lots of money. It doesn't make sense. The idea that anything Exxon did had a major influence on the debate about the effect of CO2 on climate is ridiculous. Many billions of dollars have been spent on climate research by governments. Are we to believe that a few scientists at Exxon had it all figured out 40 years ago? And then because Exxon executives didn't decide their product was evil and therefore exit the industry, nobody else realized the truth, even though the reports by the Exxon scientists were published...? It doesn't make sense.
  - bdamm 7y ago
    Fraud is making money by lying. The fact that the investors made money doesn't negate the fraud. They were unaware of risks that the company knew about. Public companies (emphasis on public) are required to reveal to all investors the risks of investing in the company. Read any prospectus and you will see that they don't generally hold back, and in many cases go into specific and extensive detail on known risks.
    - radford-neal 7y ago
      But the possible effect of CO2 on climate was not a secret. It had been widely debated for decades even in 1979. Now, it is true that companies sometimes state widely known information in their annual reports. Things like "the company's profitability could be affected by a change in consumer tastes that reduces demand for our product". (Not followed by any actual analysis of how likely this is, I note.) I assume such nonsense is due to lawyers trying to defend against other lawyers whose ethics don't deter them from filing lawsuits like this one.
      - DangitBobby 7y ago
        It's been "not a secret" for a very long time. Scientists were meaningfully speculating on the effect that spilling CO2 into the atmosphere would have since the (very late) 19th century. Here's an old scientific article talking about it, if you're interested. [PDF] http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf Amazing that we have had so much time to think about this problem.

bdamm 7y ago

Exxon has been profitable but they allegedly did it by committing fraud. They allegedly knew the magnitude of the effect of CO2 on climate, and allegedly conspired to cover it up. Part of the reason there is "intensive debate" is because of Exxon's cover up. It wouldn't have been much of a debate without it. Therefore, Exxon was purposefully redirecting the efforts of investors to understand the risks that the company faced.

radford-neal 7y ago
The suit alleges that the investors were defrauded - not the public, or some such. (That would also be absurd, but it isn't relevant anyway, so no point arguing about it.) But the investors made lots of money. It doesn't make sense. The idea that anything Exxon did had a major influence on the debate about the effect of CO2 on climate is ridiculous. Many billions of dollars have been spent on climate research by governments. Are we to believe that a few scientists at Exxon had it all figured out 40 years ago? And then because Exxon executives didn't decide their product was evil and therefore exit the industry, nobody else realized the truth, even though the reports by the Exxon scientists were published...? It doesn't make sense.
- bdamm 7y ago
  Fraud is making money by lying. The fact that the investors made money doesn't negate the fraud. They were unaware of risks that the company knew about. Public companies (emphasis on public) are required to reveal to all investors the risks of investing in the company. Read any prospectus and you will see that they don't generally hold back, and in many cases go into specific and extensive detail on known risks.
  - radford-neal 7y ago
    But the possible effect of CO2 on climate was not a secret. It had been widely debated for decades even in 1979. Now, it is true that companies sometimes state widely known information in their annual reports. Things like "the company's profitability could be affected by a change in consumer tastes that reduces demand for our product". (Not followed by any actual analysis of how likely this is, I note.) I assume such nonsense is due to lawyers trying to defend against other lawyers whose ethics don't deter them from filing lawsuits like this one.
    - DangitBobby 7y ago
      It's been "not a secret" for a very long time. Scientists were meaningfully speculating on the effect that spilling CO2 into the atmosphere would have since the (very late) 19th century. Here's an old scientific article talking about it, if you're interested. [PDF] http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf Amazing that we have had so much time to think about this problem.