Please read two recently published books: "A Disgrace to the Profession" and "Climate Change: The Facts" and then see if you still feel that your statement above is true. At the very least, these books should make you question the veracity of your conclusions. The climate change activists lost me when they prosecuted Exxon for doing climate research 30 years ago that did not fully align with their dogma. True academic scientific theory INVITES discussion and debate and is open to new ideas and interpretation. It does not attempt to silence opposing views, and it certainly doesn't try to prosecute it with the help of a willing government.

Exxon will defend itself from what is but a nettlesome complaint that they acted in their fiduciary best interest of defending their product from any tort-inducing claims. The damage proper is something that will, in any event, sink the asset value of all oil-owning entities. And one suspects that the managerial class that did the suppression of findings information will not be punished unlike their then-current shareholders.

I point out that the authors are both directly invested in their brown energy businesses. I am in medical software engineering. Of course, I have quite a CO2 footprint (who doesn't) and investments which, in the case of mutual funds, certainly are invested in brown energy companies. But, unlike the authors, I am not terrifically interested in my short term ROI being at the expense of civilization decline. On that score, I guess I'm less self-interested than House of Lords and Divert by Teach the Controversy Forum Policy Man. Of course, because I am a moderate, I don't have to believe that the Paris meeting will bring a breakthrough. After all, long-term change (like long-term investments in infrastructure - solar or coal burning) take a long time to get going. My pragmatisms is, I suppose, too easy going for straight-jacketed ideologues. And for that reason, since I've read your many other comments, I think we can be fairly sure that I am not a fan of your jacket style.

Ok you have no stake in the game. So I won't go Trump on you for being a medical software guy, even though the industry has a terrible reputation for project issues. I am far from the straight jacketed ideologues you assign to me. I would suggest that you are ideologue and I am the pragmatic. I want honest answers before I would commit billions and cause significant hardships for those who are not ultra rich. The data has been manipulated, it's predictions are not close to reality over the last 10 years and anybody who questions it is shut down to deny fair debate. These are the signs of fraud. Unlike you I have questions that I want honestly answered, you accept the climate change despite the evidence to the contrary. Co2 occurs naturally and human related co2 is less than 10%. Even if you eliminate all human generated co2 the impact does not justify the costs. You want to talk about interested parties, all these other countries will receive money from a few. Those of us who don't just accept climate change have legitimate questions and I don't like being shut down when my questions are reasonable and justifiable. You may not like my style, but it comes out when I see the bogus straw man argument, for which snarky comments are appropriate.