California Suppress Scientific Dissent on Climate Change

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
California Joins the Effort to Persecute, Suppress Scientific Dissent on Climate Change


California Attorney General Kamala Harris has joined New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman in trying to prosecute ExxonMobil for supposedly lying to its shareholders and the public about climate change, according to the Los Angeles Times. The Times reported that Harris is investigating what ExxonMobil “knew about global warming and what the company told investors.”

[clip]

These investigations are reminiscent of the old Soviet Union, where Joseph Stalin persecuted those who he thought had the “wrong” scientific views on everything from linguistics to physics. Besides sending them a copy of the Constitution so they can review the First Amendment, residents of both New York and California might also want to include a copy of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s book, “In the First Circle,” in which he outlined the Soviet government’s suppression of dissenting scientists and engineers.

What makes this even worse is the fact that other public officials also want those who question this scientific theory investigated, prosecuted, and punished. According to the Times story, these include Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif., and Rep. Mark DeSaulnier, D-Calif., who have sent letters to U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch and the Securities and Exchange Commission “calling for federal investigation of securities fraud and violations of racketeering, consumer protection, truth in advertising, public health, shareholder protection or other laws.”

But then, criminal investigations of climate change dissenters have been also called for by academics and other officials, among them former Vice President Al Gore. Maybe these politicians and their allies would favor passing a modern version of the Alien and Sedition Act, perhaps renamed the Global Warming Sedition Act. Just like the 1798 law, it could punish “false, scandalous, and malicious writing” against the climate change theory.
 

tommyjo

New Member
From the La Times article your source used to create his propaganda piece:

The move follows published reports, based on internal company documents, suggesting that during the 1980s and 1990s the company, then known as Exxon, used climate research as part of its planning and other business practices but simultaneously argued publicly that climate-change science was not clear cut.

Had you bothered to read the source article, you would realize that the actions by the Atty Gen are not "persecuting scientific dissent". It is actually the exact opposite.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-exxon-global-warming-20160120-story.html
 

jrt_ms1995

Well-Known Member
From the La Times article your source used to create his propaganda piece:



Had you bothered to read the source article, you would realize that the actions by the Atty Gen are not "persecuting scientific dissent". It is actually the exact opposite.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-exxon-global-warming-20160120-story.html

So, they used something that wasn't then and isn't now clear cut to inform their business decisions, while simultaneously arguing that what wasn't then and isn't now clear cut was not clear cut. Sounds more like intelligent hedging of risk in their business, just like any business would do when, say, tax rates are up in the air or volatility in markets is expected.
 
Last edited:

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
The move follows published reports, based on internal company documents, suggesting that during the 1980s and 1990s the company, then known as Exxon, used climate research as part of its planning and other business practices but simultaneously argued publicly that climate-change science was not clear cut.




so ####ing what ....
 
Top