Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Scientific Dissent Can Never Be Securities Fraud

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Over at the Progressive Fascist post, progressives wd400, FierceRoller, rhampton7, and Seversky have emerged as apologists for the attorneys general’s fascist efforts to quash dissent from climate alarmism.  What if the climate research really did amount to securities fraud they ask?

I have litigated securities fraud cases for over 25 years.  I know what it takes to make a securities fraud case, and I can tell you that the fascist apologists’ question is like asking, “What if that circle really were square?”  There is a legal standard for what constitutes securities fraud, and the scientific research in question (whether it was disclosed or not) can never meet that standard.  Steve Simpson does a good job of explaining this principle here.

UPDATE:

KF brings this article to my attention.  It is also an excellent resource for rebutting the fascists and their apologists.

Comments
BA, I did read the linked articles, and the LA Times article that discusses how Exxon used it climate change research to adjust the costs and reassess risks in its operations. I've also read some critical editorials, and other articles prior to 2015. Most of what is out there is clearly partisan, either for or against Exxon, but there is a legitimate question if Exxon used its climate research data internally but withheld it from investors.rhampton7
July 1, 2016
July
07
Jul
1
01
2016
02:42 PM
2
02
42
PM
PDT
RH7. You obviously did not read either of the linked articles. Typical progressive. Grit your teeth and stick to the narrative. If you still have the same question after reading the articles, let me know. If you are not going to exert the slightest effort to understand the issues, then you are guilty of willful ignorance. I can't fix willful ignorance. BTW, the short answer is your question is meaningless, because it is based on multiple fundamentally flawed premises. If you had read the articles you would know that.Barry Arrington
July 1, 2016
July
07
Jul
1
01
2016
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PDT
I agree that dissent can never be securities fraud. However, withholding imformation from investors such as the financial risks and operational costs due to climate change (when the corporation itself uses such information internally) can be grounds to investigate securities fraud. Do you disagree?rhampton7
July 1, 2016
July
07
Jul
1
01
2016
10:47 AM
10
10
47
AM
PDT
Where are all of our apologists for fascism? Here's your chance to defend the brown shirt tactics again.Barry Arrington
July 1, 2016
July
07
Jul
1
01
2016
10:42 AM
10
10
42
AM
PDT
Read this, including the comment exchanges: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/22/what-did-exxonmobil-know-and-when-did-they-know-it-part-1/kairosfocus
July 1, 2016
July
07
Jul
1
01
2016
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply