by Outcast_Searcher » Mon 28 Oct 2019, 15:03:20
Have you ever heard of disagreements among people running companies and expert employees?
Just because some scientists said "We believe X and here's why ..." does NOT prove that the folks running Exxon "knew" or believed everything they were told.
...
Example: I was heavily involved in Y2K preparation at IBM for the commercial account mainframe business, re policy for IBM global services in 1999.
I gathered a lot of expertise in various meetings of expert technicians with 40ish such people in a room, where I figured I was probably about the dumbest person in the room, and I was no slouch at my specific area of expertise.
And later when push came to shove, I made it very clear to TPTB that trying to go cheap and quick on certain regimens would NOT work, even for test mainframe LPARs, because a lot of software (like job schedulers, etc) would fail SPECTACULARLY if you tried to set the clock back.
They ignored me and went the cheaper route. And then later, when more formal testing occurred, the cheap methodology blew up in their face. (At least they found it and believed it before Y2K happened). And when management got mad, I remember some technicians I'd advised saying "Wait -- it's just like what Roger said would happen", and then everyone went away, and decided to do things properly, and eat the cost.
Now, in court, do you think you could prove that TPTB "knew" that their hoped for cheapskate method of dealing with possible post Y2K failures wouldn't work, even though I told them so and why? I don't think so. Their answer would be that they didn't believe me or that they followed their intuition, or that they wanted to save money to pump up their bonuses so they chose to hope I was wrong, or whatever. Not that they KNEW they were screwing up.
We'll see what happens, but if all AOC and their ilk have for their arm waving is that there were position papers published where scientists stated/opined that climate change was real -- I think they have nothing meaningful for proving Exxon "knew" in court.
....
Thought experiment: If a bunch of Exxon technicians claim that the earth is flat and present position papers, should Exxon management rush to pursue some expensive "flat earth" policy in case it's true? Somehow, I don't think so.
Hint: What seems obvious in decade X might seem like "a new possible theory worth keeping an eye on" in decade X - 3 or so.
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.