The real :smack: is directed to the ones that also deny that the public is actually being convinced, even Republicans.
Once again, the weakest link is the Republicans that are currently in congress as they are clearly not representing what most Republicans think it should be done; and it is clear that the reason for that is thanks to the fossil fuel money that helped many Republican deniers to be a big part of congress.
As for RICO not being applicable, the reality is that most judges do defer to experts and generally dismiss the deniers of science in court. Also Eubanks was not talking about the lack of evidence as a show stopper, only pointing out that getting evidence is a big reason why an investigation should be done as there are a lot of circumstances that do show collusion.
Eubanks expects the DOJ (why is Eubanks no longer at DOJ? Did she quit or was she forced out?) to investigate oil companies simply because she doesn’t like oil companies. She admits that she doesn’t have any evidence to even justify an investigation.
:rolleyes: live davidm said, it was already mentioned, as he said you are only repeating what she knows, and that is not much as she is not involved in this case; but her point stands, it is in the discovery face that most of the evidence came forward and then the Tobacco companies had to settle.
As pointed before in other threads the case of dealing with acid rain gives us a clue on why that is silly.
Once the evidence was there that some elements in the emissions from power plants and cars did cause acid rain (besides smog in the cities); the solution was to first regulate the power companies and car makers, because it was more economical to add catalytic converters into the manufacturing side of things and then pass the slight increase cost to the consumer.
One can see then that nowadays car drivers do get in trouble only if they continue to drive with no converters, there are exception with cars that are declared to be classic in some states, but the point here is the reason why it is silly to sue all people before a regulation is put in place. As the tobacco case showed a lot of information was ignored on purpose and misinformation was created to continue to stop regulation from taking place. The eventual regulations would indeed punish then the individuals that refuse to comply, as by then they already had enough warnings about the changes that are being done and most people who are car owners would by then already comply with their hybrid and electric cars.
Of course davidm is “live”. What a silly assumption for you to make. :rolleyes:
It’s worth repeating that Eubanks doesn’t know of anything RICO-related that applies but that didn’t stop Emily Atkin from Climateprogress from trying to create (falsify?) an issue.
While some have actually tried to discuss the possibility of a RICO-related legal attack on oil companies, some others have attempted to shout down people who disagree with them. It’s almost as if those who are doing the shouting-down actually believe that their intended victims actually care what someone who resorts to such tactics thinks, or feels, about them personally. What a hoot.
It was not created by her, but nice shooting of the messenger there.
And related to that: I meant to say “like” not live
Uh uh, so you shooting the messenger, attempting to shut others by pointing at a grammar errors and ignoring the point Eubanks did make has nothing to do with shouting down others. :rolleyes:
And yes, I also meant that it was in the discovery phase where a lot of the evidence is found to force a settlement, it was the threat of a conviction that forced the tobacco companies to stop financing the producers of doubt that abuse science.
Make your case. Before a lawsuit gets to a discovery phase, there must be some law that has been violated. RICO was created to deal with organized crime families. How does RICO apply to oil companies? Eubanks doesn’t seem to know.
Was that a grammar error? Apparently it was. I’m not attempting to stop others from posting. Eubanks seems to think that “someone” other than herself should look into using RICO statues to punish oil companies.
Now that the Austral summer has arrived (and the Southern Ocean is (inconveniently freezing up), what will the AGW high priests use for an explanation?
You can only cry wolf so often.
