https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/10/26/in-a-loss-for-exxonmobil-ny-supreme-court-orders-oil-giant-to-produce-climate-documents/?utm_term=.5c925b64e9e4

About 5 years ago, I had several lengthy discussions on LinkedIn with geologists who were deniers. Not sure what, if any, professional organizations they belonged to but it was somewhat frustrating to me dealing with alleged professionals who were so dismissive of other professionals who weren’t geologists.

For example, consider the paragraph you quoted, paragraph 6:

For example, he said, the investigation is scrutinizing a 2014 report by Exxon Mobil stating that global efforts to address climate change would not mean that it had to leave enormous amounts of oil reserves in the ground as so-called “stranded assets.”

Since the science says we must leave large amounts of oil in the ground if we are to have a chance of preserving something close to the climate in which our civilization developed, ExxonMobil’s attempt to refute this could amount to defrauding its investors.

That’s not to say a guilty verdict against ExxonMobil is a slam-dunk. But there is precedent for a judgment that forces it to change its planning, in the agreement signed by Peabody Coal.

Similarly, Schneiderman & company seem to have moved *from* allegations of *past* positions regarding global warming (to the extent that they were demanding 40 years’ worth of company documentation) *to* allegations of *future* financial *fraud*.

“But in an extensive interview, Mr. Schneiderman said that his investigation was focused less on the distant past [Really? Why then were they demanding 40 years worth of Exxon documents?] than on relatively recent statements by Exxon Mobil related to climate change and what it means for the company’s future.

“In other words, the question for Mr. Schneiderman is less what Exxon knew, and more what it predicts.
For example, he said, the investigation is scrutinizing a 2014 report by Exxon Mobil stating that global efforts to address climate change would not mean that it had to leave enormous amounts of oil reserves in the ground as so-called “stranded assets.””

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/20/science/exxon-mobil-fraud-inquiry-said-to-focus-more-on-future-than-past.html?_r=0

Also funny: a week after that WSJ piece, Exxon was in court battling the subpoena from the Mass. AG. Now, why would they do that if the investigation has been suspended?

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/12092016/exxonmobil-climate-change-research-denial-lamar-smith-subpoenas-house-science-committee-global-warming

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/31082016/conservative-think-tank-cei-sues-new-york-attorney-general-eric-schneiderman-exxon-climate