Just as an FYI, this might be a good time to sell certain stocks. This just in: http://m.thenation.com/article/180051-big-carbons-big-liability

A new and potentially potent weapon is being unleashed in the climate wars. Yesterday, three major international environmental organizations warned the corporate executives of some of the largest fossil fuel companies that they could be personally liable for damages for funding climate change denialists and working against efforts to slow climate change.

The notice came in the form of a letter, signed by Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund and the Center for International Environmental Law, that was sent to the directors and officers of thirty-two of the "carbon majors"—the ninety companies that a recent groundbreaking study demonstrated may be responsible for some two-thirds of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. Forty-four of the insurance companies that underwrite the carbon majors also received letters.

Some legal analysts believe that fossil fuel producers could be vulnerable to fraud or civil conspiracy charges if it can be legally proved that companies like ExxonMobil and Peabody Coal spent millions funding climate-change-denying organizations like the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the Greening Earth Society, while internally acknowledging that the science supporting anthropogenic (i.e., human-caused) climate change was a settled issue.

This stuff will definitely affect stock prices. The cigarette saga is unfolding all over again. I guess good way to model the stock prices is look at those companies when they were exposed.

oh great! now what happens if the whole man made climate change deal turns out to be false? Then can we sue for all the government spent money that was wasted? or can we pinch Al Gore for global fraud? give me break.

oh great! now what happens if the whole man made climate change deal turns out to be false? Then can we sue for all the government spent money that was wasted? or can we pinch Al Gore for global fraud? give me break.

If the National Guard issues a tsunami warning and the tsunami turns out to be too weak to do any damage, do you sue the National Guard? If the National Guard fails to issue a tsunami warning just in case they might be wrong, and a massive tsunami washes away your entire family, then most likely you're gonna hold the National Guard liable.

Edit: I am not a lawyer, but there's obviously enough evidence that the liability associated with doing absolutely nothing is worse than the liability associated with taking preventive measures.

i dont think that the national guard issuing a warning costs billions of dollars. think your grasping a bit. if you want to issue a man made global warming warning thats fine but when its the tax payer shelling out gobs of money then you should be accountable. if i wanted a government grant to research the effects of unicorn attacks and wasted billions of dollars on it wouldnt you expect the people at the top of my unicorn swindle to be punished for manipulating the data?

on a side note: why cant the government let the people decide what we want? if we want to drive gas powered cars and dont care about global warming or if more people find it a real threat and buy electric cars then the free market will work itself out. if you want to smoke knowing it can cause cancer then let them do it. arnt you sick of our government thinking that we are so stupid that we cant make our own minds up and must have everything spoon feed to us?

Humans, as a result of their evolution, cannot accurately assess the personal long term risks of things like like smoking cigarettes or climate change. Relying on an each-to-his-own mentality would essentially be the same as doing nothing. The day-to-day results of doing anything would not be perceptible in a scenario that takes decades to play out.

Edited May 30, 201412 yr by Funkthulhu

>>why can't the government let the people decide what we want?

Because people's decisions are mostly focused for short term gain.

In Easter Island, people decided what they wanted. They wanted to worship the gods so they built statues, and to move them they had to cut down the trees. When their lives became more miserable, they thought gods were punishing them, so they built bigger statues, and this cost them more trees. This vicious cycle ended when natural resources were lost and the civilization ultimately crashed. Earth is like Easter Island, only much bigger in scale.

If we want our children and grandchildren to have a reasonably good future in this planet, I think we should pay attention to what smart people have to say, and listen carefully. Those are the scientists who have spent their life's work collecting data and trying to understand the incredibly complex biochemical machinery we are all part of. Granted, not all scientists agree, and there are obviously different opinions out there, but the data doesn't lie. Earth is warming up, and it does so at a much more rapid pace due to human influence as it would in a natural way.

We may already be past the point of no return, kind of like in Easter Island when there were plenty of trees left, but the ecosystem already so damaged that it tipped the balance on sustainability and regeneration. When it was time to do anything about it, it was already too late. The people who lived at the time no longer care, nor did they have any clue, but the future was not there for their children.

Edited May 30, 201412 yr by Pando

Humans, as a result of their evolution, cannot accurately assess the personal long term risks of things like like smoking cigarettes or climate change. Relying on an each-to-his-own mentality would essentially be the same as doing nothing. The day-to-day results of doing anything would not be perceptible in a scenario that takes decades to play out.

Sooooo.... what your saying is that the global warming alarmists either cant "assess the personal long term risks of things" or are not human?

>>why can't the government let the people decide what we want?

Because people's decisions are mostly focused for short term gain.

In Easter Island, people decided what they wanted. They wanted to worship the gods so they built statues, and to move them they had to cut down the trees. When their lives became more miserable, they thought gods were punishing them, so they built bigger statues, and this cost them more trees. This vicious cycle ended when natural resources were lost and the civilization ultimately crashed. Earth is like Easter Island, only much bigger in scale.

If we want our children and grandchildren to have a reasonably good future in this planet, I think we should pay attention to what smart people have to say, and listen carefully. Those are the scientists who have spent their life's work collecting data and trying to understand the incredibly complex biochemical machinery we are all part of. Granted, not all scientists agree, and there are obviously different opinions out there, but the data doesn't lie. Earth is warming up, and it does so at a much more rapid pace due to human influence as it would in a natural way.

We may already be past the point of no return, kind of like in Easter Island when there were plenty of trees left, but the ecosystem already so damaged that it tipped the balance on sustainability and regeneration. When it was time to do anything about it, it was already too late.

Pando, I appreciate the visualization because it supports my position, but is probably incorrect. Recent anthropological studies have suggested that the decline of the Easter Island forest system was due to the population explosion of rats brought to the island by the natives. The rats ate the seeds and seedlings of all the native plants/trees causing the bulk of the deforestation. Additionally, the process by which the statues were moved probably entailed more rope-use than tree trunks. But, hey, at least they got their protein when their diet switched to lots of rat meat at the end. . .

Humans, as a result of their evolution, cannot accurately assess the personal long term risks of things like like smoking cigarettes or climate change. Relying on an each-to-his-own mentality would essentially be the same as doing nothing. The day-to-day results of doing anything would not be perceptible in a scenario that takes decades to play out.

Sooooo.... what your saying is that the global warming alarmists either cant "assess the personal long term risks of things" or are not human?

No, the scientists are making projections from long-term measurements, not the day-to-day weather fluctuations. So, basically, the opposite of your intended zinger.

after the rats were all gone it switched to another kind of meat

Thanks Funk for clarifying. I'll read up on the more recent findings on Easter Island.

Humans or rats, there is really no difference. Population explosion of any species causes the depletion of natural resources and/or environmental change. In the end, Mother Nature always balances things out.

The problem these days is that society in large has very little input in the judicial/legislative/executive structures. Our decision makers make up a tiny fraction of our citizens (proportional to the country's population). History has shown how easily those at every level of government can be manipulated. This can be applied to a number of issues we face today.

I usually stay silent on topics like this but this concerted effort to silence the opposition is concerning. Even if oil companies are funding research on climate change, so what? Every voice that dares question the "consensus" is shut down and mocked. Something about this whole thing just doesn't sit right with me. I'm not even taking a stance on global warming being man made or not, there is a lot more going here than meets the eye.

I think it all comes down to money, power, and status. In other words, we are all opportunistic creatures focused on short term gains attainable in one's lifetime, and don't usually give a rat's a$$ in what the future will hold after we're gone. Those who are in position of power *now* will do whatever it takes to maintain that power in order to rake in the benefits.

As Axel pointed out, the media barrage lately is very similar to how Big Tobacco paid doctors and celebrities to say that smoking was safe and fun. Is there anybody today who would say the same thing? Had the CEOs of Big T been told they would be held liable for damages from their misinformation campaign, I think they would have conceded defeat much quicker and possibly fewer people would have died from lung cancer as a result.

How much of Florida has to be underwater before Big Oil concedes the same way?

We're all addicted to fossil fuels, directly or indirectly. We're not going to throw off that addiction any time soon.

As Axel pointed out, the media barrage lately is very similar to how Big Tobacco paid doctors and celebrities to say that smoking was safe and fun. Is there anybody today who would say the same thing? Had the CEOs of Big T been told they would be held liable for damages from their misinformation campaign, I think they would have conceded defeat much quicker and possibly fewer people would have died from lung cancer as a result.

How much of Florida has to be underwater before Big Oil concedes the same way?

if big oil quit pumping oil, if all ff power plants quit running and you corked all the cows today. what happens if there is no change? whos to blame? do we start shaking our fist at the sun? i know you think that man made gw is a "fact" but it wasnt to long ago when people just like you knew that global cooling was a "fact". before you go and cripple an industry and economy you better make 100% sure that your right. with 17 years of no global warming, no massive hurricanes knocking the east coast Ect... i would say that these predictions are far from fact.

and again no viable or realistic alternative to oil is offered up by Greenpeace etc.........I wonder if Greenpeace is using electric boat motors to go after those dastardly whaling ships?

"Do as I say, not as I do" ...........comes to mind everytime one of these threads is started.

Smacks of Socialism

We're all addicted to fossil fuels, directly or indirectly. We're not going to throw off that addiction any time soon.

Not sure about addiction per se, but it has to do with economics. Fossil fuels have a large energy density which makes it cheap to move stuff around. Refueling time is also very short, adding to the convenience. I'm only talking about auto industry here of course, there are a lot of other uses for fossil fuels and petroleum products.

Once battery technology advances to the point close to the energy density of gasoline, when the recharge time can be measured in minutes rather than hours, and when an electric car is priced close to a ICE equivalent, I don't think there will be many people who will be "addicted" to gasoline cars other than some enthusiasts.

I personally hate driving around in a petroleum-powered vehicle, which is why all my cars are hybrids so that I can least get away from petroleum to some degree without seriously inconveniencing my commute, or spending a ton of money better spent on other things. I'm doing my part to help it along until technology gets to the point where full-electric cars affordable, which will probably happen in the next 5-10 years.

Edited May 30, 201412 yr by Pando

As Axel pointed out, the media barrage lately is very similar to how Big Tobacco paid doctors and celebrities to say that smoking was safe and fun. Is there anybody today who would say the same thing? Had the CEOs of Big T been told they would be held liable for damages from their misinformation campaign, I think they would have conceded defeat much quicker and possibly fewer people would have died from lung cancer as a result.

How much of Florida has to be underwater before Big Oil concedes the same way?

if big oil quit pumping oil, if all ff power plants quit running and you corked all the cows today. what happens if there is no change? whos to blame? do we start shaking our fist at the sun? i know you think that man made gw is a "fact" but it wasnt to long ago when people just like you knew that global cooling was a "fact". before you go and cripple an industry and economy you better make 100% sure that your right. with 17 years of no global warming, no massive hurricanes knocking the east coast Ect... i would say that these predictions are far from fact.

Nobody is talking about shutting down coal and oil overnight. The goal would be to slowly and gradually get us off oil by introducing viable alternatives. There is a burgeoning alternative energy industry that is slowly taking hold, but the oil and coal industry will do whatever they can to shut it down or slow it down. An example is what's going on in Ohio. See

The groups attacking renewables say their concerns are economic, and they are—just not in the way they claim. Their priorities are not with consumers struggling with rising energy costs; if that were the case, they would not gut standards that saved Ohio taxpayers more than $1 billion in just four years. They are instead working to further the agenda of fossil fuel corporations, which have a strong financial interest in stamping out the alternative energy market.

And I'm the legless cat . . .

As Axel pointed out, the media barrage lately is very similar to how Big Tobacco paid doctors and celebrities to say that smoking was safe and fun. Is there anybody today who would say the same thing? Had the CEOs of Big T been told they would be held liable for damages from their misinformation campaign, I think they would have conceded defeat much quicker and possibly fewer people would have died from lung cancer as a result.

How much of Florida has to be underwater before Big Oil concedes the same way?

All of Florida will be underwater and the die hards will still say it is just normal climate change, has nothing to do with man.

As much as man thinks it has dominion over this planet, nature always has the last word. It will correct this little human population explosion at some point, utilizing one means or another. At least that is my insignificant opinion on the matter.

So, I agree, this is similar to the cigarette hypocrisy.

The government finds proof that something destroys you if you smoke it. The government finds proof that something destroys the world if you burn it.

But it's OK to continue with both as long as there is a steady stream of tax money from both activities keeping the politicians fat and happy.

So, I agree, this is similar to the cigarette hypocrisy.

The government finds proof that something destroys you if you smoke it. The government finds proof that something destroys the world if you burn it.

But it's OK to continue with both as long as there is a steady stream of tax money from both activities keeping the politicians fat and happy.

As Baz Luhrmann -said in "Everybody's Free (to Wear Sunscreen":

Accept certain inalienable truths

Prices will rise, politicians will philander, you, too, will get old

And when you do, you'll fantasize that when you were young

Prices were reasonable, politicians were noble

And children respected their elders

So, I agree, this is similar to the cigarette hypocrisy.The government finds proof that something destroys you if you smoke it. The government finds proof that something destroys the world if you burn it.But it's OK to continue with both as long as there is a steady stream of tax money from both activities keeping the politicians fat and happy.

I've thought about that smoking thing and government before, what is it about the fact that if smoking is so bad, why does that mean that the government gets to CASH IN on sales of tobacco products through sky high taxation. Now cigarettes and other tobacco products are major sources of revenue. So cigarettes are ok as long as government is the primary beneficiary of its sales?

So now oil is bad, guess that's great news for Uncle Sam, now he can tax the crap out of it and start raking in the dough!

So, I agree, this is similar to the cigarette hypocrisy.The government finds proof that something destroys you if you smoke it. The government finds proof that something destroys the world if you burn it.But it's OK to continue with both as long as there is a steady stream of tax money from both activities keeping the politicians fat and happy.

I've thought about that smoking thing and government before, what is it about the fact that if smoking is so bad, why does that mean that the government gets to CASH IN on sales of tobacco products through sky high taxation. Now cigarettes and other tobacco products are major sources of revenue. So cigarettes are ok as long as government is the primary beneficiary of its sales?

So now oil is bad, guess that's great news for Uncle Sam, now he can tax the crap out of it and start raking in the dough!

Nice analogy, and right on the money, no pun intended. Some countries still rely on bribes to get the govt to look the other way, in the West, we just legalize bribery as fees and taxes.

So, I agree, this is similar to the cigarette hypocrisy.The government finds proof that something destroys you if you smoke it. The government finds proof that something destroys the world if you burn it.But it's OK to continue with both as long as there is a steady stream of tax money from both activities keeping the politicians fat and happy.

I've thought about that smoking thing and government before, what is it about the fact that if smoking is so bad, why does that mean that the government gets to CASH IN on sales of tobacco products through sky high taxation. Now cigarettes and other tobacco products are major sources of revenue. So cigarettes are ok as long as government is the primary beneficiary of its sales?

So now oil is bad, guess that's great news for Uncle Sam, now he can tax the crap out of it and start raking in the dough!

He is already doing a pretty good job of taxing the crap out of it.

another thing to think about is how government is always saying how they're looking out for the little guy and the lower class. well if they hinder the cheapest most efficient source of fuel how can the lower middle class drive to there jobs? when the president says "i want to see gas prices reach 4$ a gallon" (and now they have) how is that helping the middle and lower class? I know the reason behind it is to make hybrid cars and electric cars more apealing but lets face it, a person making a low income wage or a person who must drive a fare ways to get to work will be the ones who suffer the most.

So, I agree, this is similar to the cigarette hypocrisy.The government finds proof that something destroys you if you smoke it. The government finds proof that something destroys the world if you burn it.But it's OK to continue with both as long as there is a steady stream of tax money from both activities keeping the politicians fat and happy.

I've thought about that smoking thing and government before, what is it about the fact that if smoking is so bad, why does that mean that the government gets to CASH IN on sales of tobacco products through sky high taxation. Now cigarettes and other tobacco products are major sources of revenue. So cigarettes are ok as long as government is the primary beneficiary of its sales?

So now oil is bad, guess that's great news for Uncle Sam, now he can tax the crap out of it and start raking in the dough!

He is already doing a pretty good job of taxing the crap out of it.

I wonder if you know just how right you are when you say that Keith, the federal and state tax that you see posted on the pump are only the beginning. My wife does research in courthouses for oil and gas leasing. Government at all levels is making a killing every step of the way, some of these counties that have a lot drilling going on can charge up to $2 for every page photocopied. And even a small piece of property can require hundreds of photocopies in the process of clearing a title. Other things like this happen all along the way, and where does all that money come from? You pay for all of it at the pump. I would be curious about the true cost per gallon of all the taxes, fees, bureaucracy, etc.

Coming late to this thread and not trying to side track the topic but wanted to mention in passing to Pando and others interested in Easter Island and the Moai, that National Geographic has a recent 2012 NOVA special entitled "Mysteries of Easter Island" that you might like to catch on PBS or Nat Geo. We've been watching various Easter Island programs over the years that have hypothesized how the statues were moved from their quarry area and in this particular NOVA special it appears the scientists have figured out a plausible solution that actually appears to work. They went back to old passed down stories that said the Moai had "walked" to their present postions. If so, it didn't happen with logs but probably like this:

Short video clip:

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2012/07/easter-island/walking-statue-video

NOVA website link with transcript and video watch button:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/mystery-easter-island.html

Going along with what others have mentioned above, all the recent programming we've seen on the Rapa Nui palms seems to now conclude it was rats brought to the island by Pacific Island travelers in boats that did in the palms--No natural preditors, resulting in an infestation of the island and consumption of the seeds.

Again I have let a topic go perhaps a bit further than I should have. This Dypsisdean dude keeps pushing the envelope on permissibility. These topics involve politics, but we have managed to walk the line and keep controversy and rude impolite exchanges to the minimum. I hope these constraints are constantly remembered.

So I will again close this topic so we stay "in bounds," as I doubt there is much more that can really be added.