Robert Murray, CEO of Murray Energy Corp., is suing the Environmental Protection Agency because they are knowingly lying about global warming, and they are violating the federal law that government agencies must rely on quality information when making their recommendations.
I guess some of the climate change deniers may really believe the shit they spout. Or else does he really think he can provide proof that global warming isn’t real?
:smack:
Murray is the guy who runs deadly unsafe coal mines and who, in response to Obama’s first-term election, immediately laid off 156 people and made up a prayer asking God to save the Lord’s coal enterprises from the war on coal about to be waged by the godless Muslim.
Robert Murray’s picture appears in the dictionary under “unconscionable asshole”.
So the 0.01% are starting to believe their own propaganda now, are they? This should be fun.
The sources I rely on are a mix of scientific sites, sceptics and people that do look at what deniers are up to.
This reminded me of a recent incident talked about among my sources, it involved the Heartland Institute. Recently a scientist got lots of embarrassing information about the funding of the institute. If there ever was a case that the deniers could take to court it was that one, but I do think that the discovery face was going to be so damaging to Heartland that they are not appearing to go forward with any lawsuits.
So the scientist was reinstated to his old job, and I do think that many deniers out there are aware of what fate awaits them in the courts, exactly what Intelligent Designers got:
You are already getting why, in reality many of the denier groups do know how dismal the evidence is for their positions. Once the evidence and experts are presented judges in the USA will generally follow guidelines like the one that gave the scathing decision against the creationists in Dover, Pennsylvania.
A judgement like that is the last thing the contrarian groups want the people to be aware of.
Unfortunately they could not tell that to their followers in the open, and just like the Republican that thought that “everyone” knew that “Macaca” was a nice thing to say to a minority, this CEO will have another thing coming at him.
I expect several contrarian scientists will tell him to back off. There is precedent on that, in the past they have told guys like Anthony Watts, to back off from attempting to publish really flawed papers, and I do think they do it because while they normally are willing to carry water for guys like him, they are not willing to defend completely stupid papers. Or to be drilled in front of a judge that will have to go for what most of the experts will them him the evidence is.
Does that mean Murray is bringing this suit because he actually believes he can win it? He sees no possible downside?
Then again, he may be counting on that the sitting EPA leadership will turn out have at some point used *some *piece of “bad quality” information (though it matched the scientific facts) or that they lied/exaggerated/ommitted about something along the way in an effort to cut corners or get some rule passed sooner rather than later or just get off the phone and out of the office before midnight. Use discovery to dig up any less-than-virgin-pure actions on EPA’s side to score points and get material for fundraising letters, bolster doubters, trigger more inquiries, etc., even if the case itself gets him nothing.
He must genuinely think he can win (or his counsel is telling him he can), because I can see all sorts of downsides to filing a suit like that and losing. Not only will he be out the money for court costs and I suppose open himself up to counter suits, but won’t it set a precedence if the EPA wins?? I’m no lawyer, but this could be a watershed case if he loses…right?
The SCOTUS already ruled co2 was a pollutent due to its effect on the climate, so to the extent that there can be a precedent for a scientific finding, this ones already been litigated to the top.
I doubt there’s any deep strategy here. its just an expensive attention grab by a bored plutocrat.
They don’t have to believe it. They only have to profess it.
There are two basic policy strategies for industrialists:
Acknowledge the validity of climate science. This implies a moral responsibility to mitigate emissions. This costs money, and jeopardizes entire business models like coal mining and coal-fired power generation.
Ridicule climate science as a hoax promulgated by scientists and other elitists with college degrees, who are all socialists anyway. This means full speed ahead for maximum fun & profit.
Guess which strategy appeals to them?
Though I’m pretty sure that said industrialists are completely free of any mercenary motivations. They are pure altruists seeking only the good of mankind and freedom from meddling government regulation, unlike the money-grubbing scientists. We know this because industrialists have never lied to us and mostly live spartan lives of monastic poverty, unlike the money-grubbing scientists who are only interested in personal wealth from research grants. 
The problem for him is that if he doesn’t sue, he’s got to comply with the EPA rule on coal emission reduction. If he sues, he might be able to stop it or at least get an injunction staying it until the case is settled. I assume he figures the lawsuit will cost him less than reducing emissions.
As Forbes pointed out, utilities and other industries that will suffer financial harm under the new regulations are plotting strategy with their lawyers on how to block, delay or at least modify the new rules.
I guess one the reasons why they could see they have a chance is that the 2007 SCOTUS ruling was 5-4, and there is also the item that it was a defeat for the Bush EPA. I wonder if guys like the CEO think that they can do better than Dubya. So not likely to to be overturned, but they could modify the rules so much so as to make them ineffective, IMHO there is still a need for more cases to go to court so the message will get through more thick skulls.
Either that, or the right wing news bubble mentioned that case only in passing or not at all.
Not if it goes to court, then they have to prove it.
Actually, he has not brought a suit. He has “threatened” to bring a suit. I suspect that he hopes to get enough credulous support during the upcoming election among people who believe that he has brought a suit, (and who go on to believe he has won it), to further influence the election of Tea Party who will get Congress to demand that the EPA shut down.
Of course, Murray is exceptionally litigious, so maybe he will go ahead. He has sued the EPA, once, already, claiming that in enforcing the Clean Air Act, they have failed to consider provisions in that act that address the impact on employment.
The way most corporations face lawsuits is to look at assets vs. liabilities.
If projected legal costs fall below the amount of money they’d have to pay to restructure their business plus expected income hit, they’ll go the legal route to buy some time. They’ll get court dates delayed past election dates, so they can have a chance to bankroll a candidate they want into office.
I’m sure Murray knows his lawsuit is bound to fail. It’s really a stalling tactic so he can circle his wagons.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/07/02/3455923/nine-states-join-murray-epa-carbon-rule/
Murray Energy sues over carbon emissions rules
Certainly sounds like somebody actually filed lawsuit.
“A” lawsuit. Not one accusing the EPA of lying about global warming, which is what the OP posted about.
If only there was a way to read the filing.
Coal CEO Wants to Sue EPA For ‘Lying About So-Called Global Warming' - EcoWatch
Based on what I have seen, **Simplicio **is correct, he is referring to the lawsuits, the lawsuits are not looking to declare the EPA as lying about the science. (IIUC they are looking more to declare the EPA as being wrong on technicalities and not following the rules according to the lawsuit) What the sorry CEO is claiming in the interview is… well, a lie.
Pay attention to the dates.
I posted on June 11.
The suit was filed June 25.
I knew that. I am wondering what the lawsuit actually is.