Thu. Mar 21st, 2019

NY Lawyer Basic Defies Decide’s Order in Exxon Case

Visitor put up by David Middleton

IN DEFIANCE OF JUDGE’S RULING IN CLIMATE CASE, NEW YORK ATTORNEY GENERAL REFUSES TO COMPLY WITH DISCOVERY REQUESTS

MARCH 12, 2019 | SPENCER WALRATH

The New York Lawyer Basic’s Workplace (OAG) is refusing to adjust to ExxonMobil’s discovery requests even after the New York Supreme Courtroom dominated the corporate might proceed with discovery associated to the AG’s investigation of its local weather change disclosures. The corporate is searching for paperwork that might assist its allegation that the OAG is pursuing its investigation in dangerous religion.

Because the OAG initiated its investigation into ExxonMobil greater than three years in the past, its arguments have shifted a number of occasions, as every of the allegations of fraud has lacked proof. Nevertheless, along with highlighting the questionable authorized agenda, current court docket filings exhibit how the OAG has methodically denied ExxonMobil’s discovery requests in an effort to delay the train, presumably within the hope that the OAG can persuade the choose to dismiss the corporate’s defenses.

Proper to Discovery Upheld by New York Supreme Courtroom

Justice Barry Ostrager dominated in February that the OAG might file a movement to dismiss ExxonMobil’s defenses, however that within the meantime, “Exxon Mobil is privileged to pursue discovery on its defenses.”

“Civil litigants could not keep away from their discovery obligations by difficult the authorized viability of an adversary’s claims,” ExxonMobil writes in a single letter to the OAG. “Due to this fact, ExxonMobil maintains that OAG’s objections are improper to the extent they’re predicated on a authorized problem to ExxonMobil’s affirmative defenses. OAG could not credibly withhold paperwork aware of the Affirmative Protection Requests.”

The OAG’s efforts to hinder ExxonMobil’s proper to discovery stand in stark distinction to the actions of the defendant. As an illustration, the OAG claims that paperwork requested by ExxonMobil are protected by varied privileges, “with out figuring out every doc withheld and the premise for invoking any privilege,” based on one letter from ExxonMobil. In one other letter, the corporate writes that the OAG’s reluctance to show these paperwork over means that sure privilege assertions seem like “facially doubtful.”

Conversely, ExxonMobil has supplied the OAG with greater than 2,800 pages of privilege logs. The truth is, all through the whole lot of this investigation, ExxonMobil has turned over greater than 4 million pages of paperwork; so many pages that they’d stand taller than the Empire State Constructing if stacked on high of one another.

New York’s Conflicting Statements

In letters to senior officers within the OAG, ExxonMobil refutes the authorized foundation of quite a few discovery objections and spotlight inconsistencies and contradictions made by the state’s high legislation enforcement workplace.
A first-rate instance of New York’s makes an attempt to stonewall the corporate is their failure to offer paperwork concerning their communications with third events. 

[…]

Learn extra right here: Vitality in Depth

The EID article encompasses a good graphic:

In associated information, the Trump Administration has filed an amicus temporary in assist of the oil firms being maliciously and fraudulently harassed by the New York Metropolis…

Federal Authorities Backs Oil Corporations Preventing NYC Local weather Go well with

By Karen Savage

The Trump administration is supporting the 5 oil firms being sued by New York Metropolis to pay for damages associated to local weather change, submitting a friend-of-the-court temporary asking the Second Circuit Courtroom of Appeals to uphold the dismissal of the case.

The federal authorities contends within the temporary that town’s claims in opposition to Exxon, BP, Shell, ConocoPhillips and Chevron shouldn’t be determined by a state court docket. It argues the Clear Air Act prevents town from pursuing nuisance claims as a result of the air pollution that causes world warming originates from exterior the state.  It additionally argues that the claims shouldn’t be thought of in a federal court docket as a result of that might violate the separation of powers assured by the Structure. 

The Trump administration additionally says that New York’s claims “intervene with the conduct of international coverage and regulation of international commerce” and have “nice potential for disruption or embarrassment for the USA in its worldwide relations that can’t be outweighed by the relative pursuits of New York state.”

The town filed the case in opposition to the 5 oil giants in January 2018 and it was dismissed by U.S. District Courtroom Decide John Keenan final July. The metropolis appealed that call to the Second Circuit.

[…]

Keenan dominated in July that the courts usually are not the correct discussion board to deal with harms ensuing from local weather change. He stated points stemming from greenhouse fuel air pollution needs to be tackled by the  government and legislative branches.

The town’s attraction argues that Keenan “misunderstood town’s allegations and, on the premise of that misunderstanding, erroneously concluded that varied federal legislation doctrines barred town’s claims.”

[…]

The oil firms keep that town’s claims contain home greenhouse fuel emissions, that are coated below the Clear Air Act. They are saying New York Metropolis—and it’s residents—“have lengthy consumed Defendants’ merchandise and have thus willingly contributed to greenhouse fuel emissions” which have triggered local weather change.

[…]

Local weather Legal responsibility Information… That’s a factor?

As flawed because the 2007 5-Four ruling in Massachusetts v EPA was, it renders all of those malicious, fraudulent, nuisance lawsuits null and void.

What did Exxon know?

In 1968, Exxon knew that a 25% enhance in atmospheric
CO2 may result in a result in 1-7 °F rise in Earth’s common floor temperature…

1968 “THE ROBINSON REPORT”

Since Möller (1963) wasn’t a secret oil business doc, anybody else with a subscription to the Journal of Geophysical Analysis would have additionally been aware about this info. And anybody who even bothered to learn the summary of this damning paper would additionally know what we all know at this time: “The speculation that climatic variations are effected by variations within the
CO2 content material turns into very questionable” in case you consider clouds…

On the affect of modifications within the CO2 focus in air on the radiation steadiness of the Earth’s floor and on the local weather

F. Möller
Summary

The numerical worth of a temperature change below the affect of a CO2 change as calculated by Plass is legitimate just for a dry ambiance. Overlapping of the absorption bands of CO2 and H2O within the vary round 15 μ basically diminishes the temperature modifications. New calculations give ΔT = + 1.5° when the CO2 content material will increase from 300 to 600 ppm. Cloudiness diminishes the radiation results however not the temperature modifications as a result of below cloudy skies bigger temperature modifications are wanted in an effort to compensate for an equal change within the downward long-wave radiation. The rise within the water vapor content material of the ambiance with rising temperature causes a self-amplification impact which ends up in nearly arbitrary temperature modifications, e.g. for fixed relative humidity ΔT = +10° within the above talked about case. It’s proven, nevertheless, that the modified radiation situations usually are not essentially compensated for by a temperature change. The impact of a rise in CO2 from 300 to 330 ppm may be compensated for utterly by a change within the water vapor content material of three per cent or by a change within the cloudiness of 1 per cent of its worth with out the incidence of temperature modifications in any respect. Thus the idea that climatic variations are effected by variations within the CO2 content material turns into very questionable.

Journal of Geophysical Analysis
 

The total textual content of the paper is even higher…

On this case, we should distinguish between the assumptions that the water vapor content material (in cm l.e.) stays unchanged regardless of heating (cooling) of the ambiance and that it will increase (decreases).  Fixed absolute humidity implies that the relative humidity (f) decreases from 75 to 70.34 per cent with a 1° or lowered by Four.66 per cent per deg.  In response to the above-mentioned calculations, a rise in CO2 from 300 to 600 ppm offers us a temperature change ΔT = +1.5° for Δf = -Four.66 per cent per deg, and a temperature change ΔT = +9.6° for Δf = Zero.

[…]

We acknowledge that for Δf = Zero.eight per cent per deg the temperature change turns into infinite.  Very small variations impact a reversal of signal or big amplifications.

It’s not too tough to deduce from these numbers that the variation within the radiation funds from a modified CO2 focus may be compensated for utterly with none variation within the floor temperature when the cloudiness is elevated by +Zero.006 or the water vapor content material is decreased by -Zero.07 cm l.e.

[…]

These are variations within the cloudiness by 1 per cent of its worth or within the water vapor content material by three per cent of its worth.  No meteorologist or climatologist would dare to find out the imply cloudiness or imply water content material of the ambiance with such accuracy; a lot much less can a change of this order of magnitude be proved or its existence denied.  Due to these values the whole concept of climatic modifications by CO2 variations is turning into questionable.

I hope that ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips and/or Chevron file a RICO lawsuit in opposition to these @$$ hats. Each single one of many “secret” Exxon paperwork brandished by these morons may be parried in a similar way. The idiots have even cited Vail’s work on sea degree cycles as “proof” of some type of conspiracy.

References

Möller, F. (1963), On the affect of modifications within the CO2 focus in air on the radiation steadiness of the Earth’s floor and on the local weather. J. Geophys. Res., 68(13), 3877–3886, doi:10.1029/JZ068i013p03877.

Vail, P. R., R.M. Mitchum, and S. Thompson, III, 1977, Seismic stratigraphy and world modifications of sea degree, half three: Relative modifications of sea degree from coastal onlap, in C.E. Payton, ed., AAPG Memoir 26: Seismic stratigraphy—Purposes to hydrocarbon exploration: 63-97 (1977)

Additional Studying

What did ExxonMobil Know and when did they comprehend it? (Half 1)

What did ExxonMobil Know and when did they comprehend it? (Half Deux, “Similar because it ever was.”)

What did ExxonMobil Know and when did they comprehend it? (Half three, Exxon: The Fork Not Taken

“Smoke & Fumes”… The dumbest assault on ExxonMobil evah’

“Smoke & Fumes,” Half Deux: Exxon Knew “The complete concept of climatic modifications by CO2 variations is questionable.”

Even dumber than the dumbest assault on ExxonMobil evah’

What Did Shell Know and When Did They Know It?

The Guardian: “Local weather change denial gained’t even profit oil firms quickly”… Is it even grammatically doable to disclaim local weather change?

Like this:

Like Loading…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *