I meant with the price of oil for the last 3-4 months. Oil stocks have been down a while.

Sorry, I am a little late to hearing about this story. I have been focusing on what I need to get done a lot lately.

Back about 15 years ago ExxonMobil donated about $20m to proper climate research. For this they have been pilloried. But since that time their donations (if that is the right word) to greens and climate alarmism have been far larger.
I do not expect any move by ExxonMobil to defend science against Gaia and Marx followers and looters as jlc would like. Paying some negotiated fines is cheaper.

Hey SIA jus' sayin' , I havent seen posts from you in a while. Hope you're fine.

Your political situation is back in the news. The Pumas played well against those wallaby wannabees.

Global warming believers are the true deniers. They deny that the world’s temperatures have ever changed. They deny that there have been Ice Ages. They deny that there have been inter glacial warm periods when crocodiles, elephants and lions roamed in Europe. There is plenty of evidence that Neanderthal men lived among hippopotamus, African elephant, spotted hyena, lion, leopard, etc. during inter-glacial warm periods. Paleolithic plant studies have shown that global warm periods produce more rainfall and lush vegetation. The opposite is of course true of ice ages. In other words, warmer leads to more food and colder leads to less food. Do the climate change controllers think that they can keep natural global temperature changes from occurring? During recorded history, there have been many warm and cold periods. Vikings colonized Greenland during a warm period and had to leave 100 years later because of cold. There was a mini-ice-age during the nineteenth century. Plants rely on CO2 for growth and convert it into O2 and H2O. The climate change worriers are using several logical fallacies in their arguments. The fallacy of distraction from ignorance. Reducing CO2 emissions is not known to increase global temperatures so the opposite must be true. The slippery slope of increasingly unacceptable consequence is drawn, most of which are figments of someone’s imagination. The proposition is argued to be true because it is widely held to be true. The person’s character is attacked in the false dilemma that skeptics believe in a flat earth.

Manmade Global Warming/Climate Change is not science. It is a religion to the Statists.

Good point. Those greedy oil companies strike again. [sarcasm]

accused of knowing? na, they will accused of do it so more fuel will be needed to heat homes.

It's interesting...if this "proves" that Global Warming was really happening, all along...why did all those climate scientists have to lie in their emails in Climate Gate? If the evidence was irrefutable, in the first place (HA!), I see little need for taking the risk of getting caught in a lie.

P.S. I loved the little comment about the "unwavering objectivity" of the Huffington Post...I almost spit out my coffee!

government is in such dire need of money they are resorting to anything and everything possible. the exxon attorneys are on staff so i hope they fight this to the end when the government decides to walk.
what a horrible joke we are living in at this time.

This is a wonderful opportunity for Exxon to call all global warming into doubt. Generally, when you get 'the US vs [someone else]' the other side is outgunned - but in this case, Exxon has big enough guns to productively fight back.

What Exxon needs to do is embrace this opportunity to challenge the very concept of global warming: ie "We cannot have 'known about Global Warming in 1977 because Global Warming does not exist." Exxon should go for a high-publicity trial that pushes Climategate evidence that the Global Warmers themselves knew that Warming was a farce.

Jan

Whether global warming is happening or not, its not the business of any government. The whole deal is just there to increase government power and taxation

So Hillary wants Exxon investigated because they withdraw support for her non audited non profit and New York jumps through the hoops.

Global cooling is now back in the news. I wonder is they will be accused of knowing about that too. :)

My advice: call Michael Mann as a witness for the defense, if the NYAG is not willing to call him to testify for the prosecution, and examine him as a hostile witness.

"Dr. Mann! I call your attention to this quote: 'I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to the data series...from 1981 onwards, and to 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline.' Was he talking about you?"

I thought the econazis changed "global warming" to "climate change" due to such things as there being no increase in the temp for years and the recently noticed growth of the Antarctic icecap.
But I do recall AL Gore claiming that some heavy snows were the result of global warming.
Yeah, right, Mr. Ozonehead.
If I were ExxonMobil, I'd proclaim that climate has always been changing on this planet since it first formed an atmosphere.

I had better lower my dad's exposure to the Mobil stock that he helped increase by working for them for 26 years.

Simple. You get a jury of 12 people. Put on all the testimony that the Judge will allow and then they decide.

Science is decided by consensus, didn't you know?

Well stated.
Sounds like a voice of experience.
This is just another in a long-continuing series of fraudulent acts by natural climate change deniers (and as you noted, supported by corrupt looters with a vested interest.)

Exxon Mobil might not be facing this problem if they hadn't stopped "donating" money to the Clinton family foundation. Hilary publicly called for the investigation of Exxon Mobile on Halloween (BOO!):

"The Clinton Foundation has taken at least $1 million from ExxonMobil and co-sponsored the Foundation’s 2014 annual meeting. But the company decided not to co-sponsor the Foundation’s annual meeting in New York City in late September 2015."

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governme...

I chose the link from Breitbart because it is doubtful The Huffington Post is too "objective" to include anything like this:

"The Clinton Foundation is seeing its donations rise during Clinton’s presidential campaign. Potential donors should know that while giving to the Foundation could help them, any future pauses in giving could also hurt them…with a vengeance."

HRC isn't President (yet), but, if elected, she will no doubt follow her predecessor's policy of "punishing (their) enemies" (anyone who disagrees with their ideology and/or refuses to pay them the "tribute" they believe they deserve).