Uhhhhh.... what??

You're talking about a very, very narrow area here. It pretty much has to reach the level of false advertising. To rise to that it has to be either an attempt to defraud or something that is harmful. So you're talking about snake oil salesmen saying the bottle of stump water they have will cure baldness. Or advertising something as safe that you know is likely to harm the person buying it. And we're not talking about some nebulous eventual harm. We're talking about a direct injury.

Trying to prosecute a company for advocating a position that isn't factually sound is not at all acceptable. Just the fact that the government thought about trying it is scary.

When you think of all the people who have been fleeced by flat-out false advertising, I don't see why some of them shouldn't be taken to task. I basically had to stare down a guy who was trying to rip off my father-in-law (who was totally sucked in by this guy's advertising). Ironically, the guy ended up getting prosecuted and he was convicted.
 
big if true

“This matter has been discussed. We have received information about it and have referred it to the FBI to consider whether or not it meets the criteria for which we could take action on,” said Attorney General Loretta Lynch, responding to a question from green activist Sen Sheldon Whitehouse at a Senate Judiciary Hearing.

Whitehouse said:

“The similarities between the mischief of the tobacco industry pretending that the science of tobacco’s dangers was unsettled and the fossil fuel industry pretending that the science of carbon emissions’ dangers is unsettled has been remarked on widely, particularly by those who study the climate denial apparatus that the fossil fuel industry has erected.”

“Under President Clinton, the Department of Justice brought and won a civil RICO action against the tobacco industry for its fraud. Under President Obama, the Department of Justice has done nothing so far about the climate denial scheme,”


So by your definition this was big, because it was true. Hope that helps.
 
glad to see the matter has been "referred"

interesting that back in the day the courts adjudicated against the tobacco industry on the basis of RICO...that is an interesting precedent...my memory had been a bit hazy on that...but that strikes me as highly oppressive AND tyrannical...boohoo for big tobacco's right to push a poisonous product. .i guess there is a reasonable discussion to be had (probably not here) about whether a company has a right to publish deza about the safety of its products...whether restrictions on that right impede "free speech"

i actually think Exxon publishing a report that fossil fuels do not cause climate change is in some ways different than tobacco companies saying cigarettes do not cause cancer...i haven't really thought about it that carefully but you wouldn't want to extend this precedent against tobacco companies too aggressively to curtail various forms of corporate speech...there are competing interests...none of them absolute imo
 
Last edited:
Agreed. It's past time that the psychiatric and medical communities are taken to task for encouraging a mental illness that results in something like a 40% suicide rate, instead of treating the cause.
 
correlation and causation and all that jazz

most people who go to see a therapist have depression or anxiety

the fasten your seat belt sign often precedes turbulence

otoh if the ice cores show a temporal relationship where increases in carbon in the atmosphere precede periods of warming then maybe there is some causation involved...i say maybe because there might be a third forcing variable that precedes and causes both...life and science can be complicated
 
Last edited:
correlation and causation and all that jazz

most people who go to see a therapist have depression or anxiety

the fasten your seat belt sign often precedes turbulence

otoh if the ice cores show a temporal relationship where increases in carbon in the atmosphere precede periods of warming then maybe there is some causation involved...i say maybe because there might be a third forcing variable that precedes both...life and science can be complicated

Did you plan to go to war with China and India to stop their emissions growth before or after the Ukraine mess is over?
 
Did you plan to go to war with China and India to stop their emissions growth before or after the Ukraine mess is over?

no...i was making a point in the post you quoted that i guess escaped you...in my own elliptical way i was expressing some skepticism about whether increases in carbon in the atmosphere cause global warming...it could be that higher levels of carbon are a byproduct of a process that causes global warming...a symptom rather than cause

but even if i believed it did, i would not advocate for war to deal with the problem

however, if i thought war was the last and only remaining chance to save the planet i would not hesitate to advocate for it...but i don't think we are at such a point
 
it wasn't bad. laid back saturday to be up early for brunch and the braves game today. we are thinking of going to see Jurassic Park or Maverick after the game too. So, Sunday should be good too

but seriously, good call on all of this man.

must be weird to always be living in fear
 
We believe ya man

And yeah crazy for me to post the exact words of the attorney general and taking her seriously

Thank God Trump won
 
Lol

I guess our season tickets aren’t real etc

But seriously, great call on this man. Stop living in fear man.

There’s a word out there for that, it’s called being a coward. Something you stupidly called people about Covid and made no sense lol
 
Last edited:
I'm glad this thread was bumped as a reminder of how insane and evil the communists are... They cannot be trusted with power as we are seeing today. Thanks for spending your Saturday digging this up. A great reminder for us all
 
Back
Top