Don’t know that they do. If you find the opinions of “zealots” difficult to accept, does that mean you approve of disinformation campaigns that promote a view you find acceptable? Put baldly, if we are so wrong, how come they have to lie?
If everyone believes what the pro-global warming zealots have been saying, then the issue is settled. Right? I mean, all of the changes demanded by pro-global warming zealots would have been enacted already. Right? The voters have spoken.
For the last 25+ years, I’ve repeatedly heard that “the science is settled”, but there still seems to be questions about the issues. Maybe the science isn’t settled, yet?
Thank you for proving my point. Here are the pertinent and fascinating things about the above statements:
[ul]
[li]“Pro-global warming zealot” is used as a euphemism for “climate scientists who study climate change as a career and actually know something about it”[/li][/ul]
[ul]
[li]The allegation that there are “sides” to the basic AGW question – the “side” represented by scientific fact, and the “side” represented by the oil companies[/li][/ul]
[ul]
[li]That in making public policy we simply get to choose the “side” we like best, as both the factual side and the fantasy side are equivalently valid[/li][/ul]
[ul]
[li]A goodly portion of the American public – and Congress critters on the Republican side – apparently much prefer the oil company “side” of the argument[/li][/ul]
The whole idea that the problem of anthropogenic global warming can be characterized as “sides” in a “debate” is a fabrication of the relentless fossil fuel industry disinformation campaign. In light of what scientific assessments like those of the IPCC and the National Academy of Sciences actually say, based on the vast preponderance of scientific literature from the last 35 years, this is really a pretty stunning indictment of what the fossil fuel industry has been able to accomplish in its propaganda campaign. The oil companies have long been in the forefront of this sordid effort, with the coal companies and energy-intensive heavy industry not far behind. Thus strongly suggesting a positive response to the question of the OP. The question isn’t whether the fossil fuel industry has been lying to public for decades, and even to Congress – the question is whether it technically meets the evidentiary requirements of RICO. It should at least be tested.
I don’t know about any “pro global warming zealots” (is that some sort of religion or something?) but, aside from those people, the scientific community is pretty damned close to unanimous that our activities are causing, and will continue to cause, heating of the atmosphere.
As to what the public finds so unbelievable, why are you asking us? You seem to be part of the subset of the public that doesn’t accept the science. Don’t you know why you find it so unbelievable? You tell us.
This brings up an interesting question. The US may or may not be able to bring some sort of charges, but we’re talking about huge multi-national corporations. Is it possible that they could be prosecuted somewhere with different laws, perhaps some European country?
Hahahaha. If YOU want to change the status quo, then maybe YOU’ll need to come up with a more convincing argument.
The issues of global warming/climate change has been discussed in many other threads. This thread is about using RICO laws to sue/charge oil companies for making a more convincing argument than you seem to be able to. Should ExxonMobil be held liable for RICO violations?
You’re the one who muddied this thread by going on about “pro climate change zealots”. This is the same tactic we’ve been discussing in the “Stupid Gun News” thread - derail the conversation from the subject at hand with ad hominems and loaded language.
I’m not the one who derailed this thread. Juvenile terms like “pro climate change zealots” are deliberately provocative ad hominems that add nothing of substance to the conversation, so don’t try to turn this around and make me the disruptor.
Now, let’s get back to discussing the subject of this thread and let’s do it like adults.
I’m against it. To hold the fuel companies accountable here would be tantamount to declaring that they should be our go-to source for unbiased data on the products they sell. And that would say nothing good about how well-informed we expect the average citizen to be, or how willing voters will be to inform themselves.
Actually, as the tobacco case showed, an eventual settlement (not a conviction) does take away a mayor corruption influence that is being injected into our politics; in the form of groups funded by fossil fuel groups and individuals that create twisted works of science. Works that then the politicians (that they also control) use to stop needed reforms.
Ok, so we have the DOJ write a memo. Then the Democrats call for Congressional hearings. That’s where we could get subpoenas (or more likely accusations of a Republican coverup.) One hearing or at the most two should do it; we don’t need 11. First done without any plea agreements, then done with if appropriate.
Presumably everyone will be aware that the only thing that could send the executives to jail would be perjury.
Maybe, but I understand that RICO is considered pretty aggressive by international standards. OTOH, US free speech protections are pretty high as well.
Hahahaha. You’ve solved the pro climate change zealots believability problem. It’s not their actual failure to convince the public but the use of the term “zealots” that has led to their failure to convince the public. :smack:
Can RICO be used against the oil companies?
*C. Injury “by reason of” a Section 1962(b) Violation
Just as a civil plaintiff must show injury caused “by reason of” the defendant’s investment to prevail under section 1962(a), a plaintiff must show injury “by reason of” the defendant’s acquisition or control of an interest in a RICO enterprise to prevail under section 1962(b). 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c); Advocacy Organization for Patients and Providers v. Auto Club Ins. Ass’n, 176 F.3d 315, 329 (6th Cir. 1999); Crowe v. Henry, 43 F.3d 198, 205 (5th Cir. 1995). Injury flowing from defendants’ predicate acts is alone not enough to confer standing under section 1962(b). Lightening Lube, Inc., 4 F.3d at 1190. “Such an injury may be shown, for example, where the owner of an enterprise infiltrated by the defendant as a result of racketeering activities is injured by the defendant’s acquisition or control of his enterprise.” Casper v. Paine Webber Group, Inc., 787 F.Supp. 1480, 1494 (D.N.J.1992). In addition, the plaintiff must establish that the interest or control of the RICO enterprise by the person is as a result of racketeering. Banks v. Wolk, 918 F.2d 418, 421 (3d Cir. 1990)*.
Even Eubanks states that she can’t provide enough evidence for the DOJ to file charges against oil companies.
