Just like in the 60's and 70's when the big tabacco companies claimed cigarrettes didnt cause cancer, is this the same situation with oil campanies? In the 60's and 70's they brought out all types of studies showing cigarrettes didnt cause cancer and in fact they were healthy for you. In fact they brought out scientists and doctors to debunk all the claims about cigarrettes causing cancer. The facts are, the tabbacco companies did try to coverup the fact that smoking caused cancer. Doesnt this parrarel the situation with Oil companies. And if it turns out 15-20 years from now, that indeed there is global warming, and some whistle blower shows evidence the oil companies did try to cover up the facts. what are the legal liabilites if any? And remember back in the early 70's when all of the companies claimed the ozone layer depletion was a hoax. Till scientific evidence proved that there was a hole.
how would you go about proving global warming? (this is just a question) the problem is when i go to weather.com or watch the news guy on tv they tell me the hi/lo and historical "hottest day/coldest day"... sometimes, for example, data for today will be 50 deg. coldest ever: 25 deg hottest ever: 110 deg so it is hard to know for sure.
Is the next legal liability for Oil Stocks "Global Warming"? No. First, it has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt (not really). But more importantly, any company that in any way consumed oil or gasoline to do business would also be liable. Ain't happenin' while gas stations are still servicin'.
I think with more scientific data. And the use of better historical records. And just reality in the door. If global warming models prove true, 15-20 years down the line, we should see real undeniable effects of global warming. Back in the 60's and 70's people were claiming smoking caused lung cancer. But the tabacco companies brought out scientific evidence proving otherwise. It wasnt until, a significant portion of the american public starting to get lung cancer, that it finally broke. But even then big tabacco was saying smoking didnt cause cancer. And previously scientific studies that were debunked by tabacco companies, came into light. And with the help of whistleblowers. My question is, if big oil knows that global warming is true, would you be angry.
well you are talking about criminal case which is beyond the reasonable doubt, which is a really high measure. But if we are talking about the civil arena, which is perponderous of proof, then its a whole diffrent ball game. Just look at merck and vioxx. There isnt a damming whistleblower or any one paper that showed that they knew about the dangers of vioxx, but the evidence suggested that they knew about it. hey and just look at all of the abestos companies. And for that matter all of the hospitals and doctors in the country. So importance doesnt protect them at all. I think we have to look at this in a global reach those. If somehow they manage to get tort protection, it doesnt protect them from other countries trying to sue them.
If an Oil Company(ies) were sued in a civil case and actually lost, it would open the door for any other companies that used an excessive amount of oil to conduct business. Such as Wal-Mart, Tyson, Yellow, Quick Trip (convenience stores), JiffyLube, etc. etc. Basically any company in the world could be sued just for the transportation of goods, or use of heavy equipment, the selling of motor oil from store shelves, or for providing customers with oil changes, really anything would be in the realm of possibilities. Not to mention every raw materials refiner or any chemical plants would also become liable. Think of it as guilt by association. They may not have used oil, but what they're using has equal effects on the global pollution and possibly global warming as well. So until the refining of oil becomes obsolete, nobody is winning any case against any specific company(ies) for contributing to global warming. By the way, oil companies have been testing and refining oil using different methods and different additives for years in an attempt to lower pollution output levels. I don't think anyone in the industry is hiding anything the scientific community doesn't already know about. Baron: Shouldn't this have been moved to Economics instead of Chit-Chat?
This is a very interesting question/poll, even if it is an ABSURD notion. As long as the trial attorneys continue to dump millions into Democratic pols campaign funds, anything is possible with these scumbags. The ambulance-chasers certainly have a very strong alley in all the chicken-little-shits in the Democratic party. http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm ================= Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?" ===========
Next big trial money will be in diabetes imo. Just need a few hundred doctors to link it up to a suitable deep pocket.