Today, CEI sponsored a full-page advertisement in The New York Times highlighting abusive efforts by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, U.S. Virgin Islands Attorney General Claude Walker, and a coalition of other “AGs United for Clean Power” to silence the speech of more than 100 businesses, nonprofits, and private individuals who question the AGs’ positions on climate change. Published as an open letter, the ad features signatures from 43 organizations, legal experts, and individuals who value Americans’ First Amendment rights and believe they should be protected.
Full text below. View the ad as a full color PDF here.
ABUSE OF POWER
All Americans have the right to support causes they believe in.
The right to speak out is among the most fundamental principles of American democracy. It should never be taken away.
Yet, around the country, a group of state attorneys general have launched a misguided effort to silence the views and voices of those who disagree with them.
Recently, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, U.S. Virgin Islands Attorney General Claude Walker, and a coalition of other “AGs United for Clean Power” announced an investigation of more than 100 businesses, nonprofits, and private individuals who question their positions on climate change.
This abuse of power is unacceptable. It is unlawful. And it is un-American.
Regardless of one’s views on climate change, every American should reject the use of government power to harass or silence those who hold differing opinions. This intimidation campaign sets a dangerous precedent and threatens the rights of anyone who disagrees with the government’s position—whether it’s vaccines, GMOs, or any other politically charged issue. Law enforcement officials should never use their powers to silence participants in political debates.
We are standing up for every American’s First Amendment right to speak freely. We hope you will join us. This is a critical battle, and it will determine whether our society encourages spirited debate or tolerates only government-approved opinions.
Kent Lassman
President & CEO, Competitive Enterprise Institute
C. Boyden Gray
Former White House Counsel
Andrew C. McCarthy
Former Chief Assistant United States Attorney, Southern District of New York
Michael B. Mukasey
U.S. Attorney General, 2007-2009; U.S. District Judge, 1988-2006
Ross McKitrick
Professor of Economics, University of Guelph
Ronald D. Rotunda
Distinguished Professor of Jurisprudence, Chapman University
Richard S. Lindzen
Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, MIT
William Happer
Emeritus Professor of Physics, Princeton University
Jim DeMint
President, The Heritage Foundation
James H. Amos, Jr.
President & CEO, National Center for Policy Analysis
John A. Baden
Chairman, Foundation for Research on Economics & the Environment
Lisa B. Nelson
CEO, American Legislative Exchange Council
Paul Driessen
Author & Energy Policy Analyst
Thomas J. Pyle
President, Institute for Energy Research
Steven J. Allen
Vice President & Chief Investigative Officer, Capital Research Center
David Ridenour
President, National Center for Public Policy Research
Steven J. Milloy
Publisher, JunkScience.com
Brooke Rollins
President & CEO, Texas Public Policy Foundation
Paul Gessing
President, Rio Grande Foundation
Ron Arnold
Researcher & Author
William Perry Pendley
President, Mountain States Legal Foundation
Adam Brandon
President & CEO, FreedomWorks
Hank Campbell
President, American Council on Science and Health
Craig Rucker
Executive Director, Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow
Tom McCabe
CEO, Freedom Foundation
Richard B. Belzer
Economist
Heather R. Higgins
President & CEO, Independent Women’s Voice
Joseph G. Lehman
President, Mackinac Center for Public Policy
Sabrina Schaeffer
Executive Director, Independent Women’s Forum
Joseph Bast
President, The Heartland Institute
John C. Eastman
Founding Director, The Claremont Institute’s Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence
Robert Alt
President & CEO, The Buckeye Institute
Michael Pack
President & CEO, The Claremont Institute
Josh Blackman
Assistant Professor, South Texas College of Law
Lynn Taylor
President, Tertium Quids
David Rothbard
President, Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow
Tracie Sharp
President & CEO, State Policy Network
Kenneth Haapala
President, Science and Environmental Policy Project
Tim Phillips
President, Americans for Prosperity
Myron Ebell
Director of the Center for Energy & Environment, Competitive Enterprise Institute
George Landrith
President, Frontiers of Freedom
John Tillman
CEO, Illinois Policy Institute
Craig D. Idso
Chairman, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
Affiliations listed for identification purposes only.
Thnak you CEI and all signatories.
Yes! About time!
+10
They are not the only ones fighting back !!
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/05/18/fighting-back-ags-ask-judge-to-block-climate-change-fishing-expedition.html?intcmp=hplnws
@Marcus IMO, a completely wrong-headed approach to “fighting back”. As wrong-headed as the CEI effort is welcome, but weak. I would advocate a shareholder lawsuit against Exxon Mobil management, premised on the idea that it should have kept up on the state of climate science, as it OBVIOUSLY can be expected to effect their regulatory environment, and thus profitability, for long term leases for oil drilling sites. If their management HAD kept up with the science, they’d know that the CO2 catastrophists were spreading an increasingly dubious mythology injurious to their business, and thus they had an executive responsibility to educate the public against CO2 catastrophism, from the scientific (and, I’d argue, economic) point of view.
OTOH, if they HAD NOT kept up with the science, then they’re grossly incompetent.
A discovery process, that a shareholder lawsuit would enable, would allow such a determination to be made.
I also believe that more aggressively going after Exxon Mobil (et. al.), would help dispel the mythology that will enable CO2 catastrophists to eventually go after truth tellers like Anthony Watts, via RICO lawsuits. We should be more concerned about protecting the careers of exposed truth tellers like Watts, than about hurting Exxon Mobil’s feelings. For one thing, the former does not have deep pockets, while the latter does.
OR SHOULD WE WAIT UNTIL WATTS GETS SUED, LIKE MARK STEYN??
Note: I’m not a lawyer, so may be missing something obvious.
They,re going after exxon because exxon has money. From what I,m assuming our host need not worry. If these clownswere really worried about sceptics aw would be on the top ten.
@ John Piccirilli Why would AG’s care if Exxon Mobil has a lot of money, or not? Perhaps they actually believe that they’re using a significant amount of that money to advance so-called denialism?
In any event, obviously the motives for the shareholder lawsuit that I’m suggesting are very different than the motives of the CO2 catastrophists.
Your post isn’t very clear, but apparently you are assuming that Watts is safe because he doesn’t have deep pockets, like Exxon Mobil. Is this right? If so, care to explain that? Exxon Mobil can easily afford fighting lawsuits, most of us can’t. Also, who is doing far more damage to CO2 catastrophist fairy tales, Watts or dog-that-doesn’t-bark Exxon Mobil?
If I was Watts, I’d be quite concerned. I wonder what Mark Steyn would say, if he weighed in on this?
Unfortunately not a list of mainstream American legal, economic or technical leaders.
First Amendment Rights: something for your friends only, and only if they “count” in the community?
Appeal to authority fallacy. That took courage.
The second sentence indicates the use of sarcasm.
Thank you! And all that ultimately support feedom.
I notice not a signatory from Exxon, Shell, BP, Caltex, AMOCO, Socony Vacuum, or anyone from any Coal Foundation or coal mining group.
Lawyers, economists, climate scientists, physicists and freedom lovers.
Dudley: And nothing from the blogsphere, as far as I can see.
Anthony: was there a reason why WUWT is not represented on this ad?
What is the cost of a full page color ad in the NYT?
Yup. The oil companies are the “dogs that didn’t bark”. Surely, they have scientists that know about the problems – including fraud – involved with CO2 catastrophism. Their silence on these matters is very damning. I have advocated shareholder lawsuits against their management. Either they’ve kept abreast of climate science (as opposed to scientistic CO2 catastrophism), and have failed to take prudent steps to educate the public about what they know, or they’re grossly irresponsible. Either way, their shareholders deserve to know the truth of the matter, and to force them to make amends.
When I was a kid, a local gas station had an attractive female parading around in a bikini and high heels, as part of a promotion. If Exxon Mobil wanted to educate the public about the true state of climate science, they could EASILY afford to do so; furthermore, they could also exploit the fact that drivers are ubiquitous in the US, and so directly hand out literature to drivers that are filling up.
With or without bikini-clad women distributing the literature, the persecution by AG’s would have been rendered politically impossible.
Logically speaking “saving the planet” takes precedence over all; free speech, democracy, and even human life take a back seat to it. The ends justify the means is their credo.
Interesting that they should stick “GMOs” in the add… Those who are against GMOs are (just like AGW) outside the consensus. This is an appeal to ALL to stand up for freedom of speech.
I doubt very many who are against GMOs would be on the skeptic side of the AGW debate.
Agreed, they are definitely appealing to everyone with this ad.
Mark, now i don’t know if i account for much, but i AM against GMOs! i’m also dead set against AGW. Call me strange, but i is what i is…
(8^{0)-<~<
That’s one. (I did say “not many”, I did not say “none”)
If a person is simply “for” any and all genetically modified organisms being treated as perfectly safe, I consider that person ignorant, or irrational, or both. Same goes for vaccines.
JohnKnight, Humans have been producing GMO’s for thousands of years. This is how we have so many breeds of cattle, and dogs. To-date there has been no documented down side to humans. We call it selective breeding, the outcome is a GMO.
Flyover Bob,
“Humans have been producing GMO’s for thousands of years. This is how we have so many breeds of cattle, and dogs.
I dismiss your belief about that as extremely ignorant . . hopefully ; )
John, he’s merely echoing the conservative talking point on this issue. i’ve heard it enough times at these climate blogs that i’ve decided not to even bother debating GMOs. (better to stick with debating climate change here at WUWT)…
You know the George Carlin take on “saving the planet” sounds more current every day. “The planet isn’t going anywhere. WE are!”
Since when does “the planet” even NEED “saving?” Leftist hogwash left over from hippie daze.
One assumes that the Grey Lady took the full fee for the ad. It would never do to let profit – er -reducing losses – stand in the way of principle. Free speech in the NYT – we’ll attack and let you pay to respond.
Thanks for the reprint –it will at least help move the content out of the echo chamber of Times readers.
Why no mention of Al Gore? He introduced the group at the press conference and had great influence over the AG of the Virgin Islands, who is reportedly a great admirer. Gore is clearly a major player.
This was about issues, not players.
Part of the success of the false global warming narrative is because people try to separate issues and players. You can do that in science but you can’t do it in politics and this is purely a political issue.
maybe they argue principles because that’s what matters and that’s what they will win on.
personalities can be mocked up one side and down the other like a ton of bricks till the cows come home – and you win what? you don’t win- you waste time and lose.
stick to the principles – RIGHTS WINS THE DAY.
hell, an old man can get into the ladies’ room if he argues ‘rights’ instead of personalities.
CEI seems clear on this – which i mention in case anybody is interested in winning rather than losing in an entertaining manner.
alternatively, you can argue ‘teh skience’ and lose just as easily.
it’s one of 2 options open to somebody who has no grasp of principles, eh.
MarkW
Uhhh…I dunno. Wth 20 AGs lined up against you, you got a player problem.
This “Planet” they are trying to save, is that the sphere of their influence?
Seems what they,our self proclaimed saviours, are really trying to save their right to steal.
The UN operation could be read as;”Parasites of the World Unite”.
The current form of Kleptocracy is spiralling in, as the victims retreat from the bandits.
We,our governments, are rapidly running out of people to steal from.
Great add, however the next one will be simpler…”Laws.. For the little people only”.
The UN operation could be read as;”Parasites of the World Unite”.
Nice.
It could also be labeled “Dollars for Dictators”.
And their NGO could be called ‘Dictators for Dollars’ 🙂
Excellent! Good to see some good solid push-back. This is what’s needed. Bullies rely on people to cower before them and keep silent, and they have gotten away with so much for so long. It’s about time someone gives them a bloody nose and CEI are just the ones to do it.
I fear the mention of vaccines as “political” controversies will be immediately leapt on to discredit and muddy the clear message of the ad.
Any leaping done will emphasis the point this ad is making. Any attempts at “muddying” will highlight the issue! 🙂
Even that at the end of the day is about the right of self-determination and personal freedom. I don’t _choose_ to get flu, pneumonia or shingles shots. So sue me.
betapug
I agree it was a mistake to include vaccines.
Thanks to all who fight the battle to save science from corruption by politicians who seek to control the activities of we the citizens.
Thank you, John Coleman, for speaking out! Pity that the self-described “climate experts” at The Weather Channel today are such smug useful idiots for the AGW hoax.
No outcry of distressed NYT journalists yet over running this ad? Shouldn’t they see this as the equivalent of selling plutonium to Iran?
I’m surprised they even allowed the ad to be run
Maybe the decline in subscriptions (limited to the leftist echo chamber) is persuading them to be a little more open-minded; or at least be willing to cash checks from the Dark Side.
I strongly suspect that most “journalists” at the NYT would have no problems with selling plutonium to Iran.
Dang MW,
Didn’t see your reply before I posted mine. :>(
Michael Palmer,
I think the “distressed” NYT journalists would all be for selling plutonium to Iran.
Phil R May 18, 2016 at 10:40 am
MarkW May 18, 2016 at 10:32 am
Gentlemen I am first and foremost a capitalist. I would have no problem with making a “buck” by selling the Iranians plutonium. Provided of course that the delivery system is a Tomahawk ALCM.
Okay SLCM is also okay
michael
I believe it was Barry Goldwater who once said of the Soviets, “We should sell them anything they can’t throw back at us.”
Where do the candidates stand on witch hunting? The voters need to know.
Hillary loves it. Bernie thinks it’s the best thing since Carl Marx died and Trump hates it!
I think the victims or families of victims of Chavez, Maduro, and the Castros could recall the details of all the slaps and cuts on the way down to losing freedom and dignity. It did not happen all at once.
It is pathetic that anyone or organization had to pay for such an advertisement. CEO should send the totalitarian AGs the bill, and a copy of 1984 and Atlas Shrugged.
The people charged with defending the people from big government, have now become the main threat to those very same people. Now we’ll find out how well Jefferson designed the constitution.
Pointman
Pointman:
Jefferson did not write the constitution or any part of it.
That was Madison’s work.
At least three of those amendments turned out to be major mistakes.
1) Prohibition
2) Income tax
3) Popular election of Senators
With # 3 turning out to be the most devastating.
That’s #3 on the list not the 3rd Amendment.
[17th A. -mod]
Forrest and Mark W: The US Constitution is slightly over 200 years old. In that time they have only needed to amend it 27 times. I think that is a remarkably low number of times that they have felt the need to amend it. Some state constitutions have 3 to 4 times that number of amendments. Don’t forget that 10 of those amendments are the principal guarantors of our personal freedoms. I think the founding fathers the did an amazing job in writing the document. There have been many more than 27 amendments proposed but they have not met the constitutional requirements for enactment. The founding fathers set the bar very high to discourage frivolous attempts to change the document.
@ Forrest Gardener and Mark W: The US Constitution is nearly 230 years old. In that time they have only added 27 amendments! I think that is a remarkably low number of times that the document has needed to be changed. Some state constitutions have more than twice the number of amendments. Keep in mind that the constitution would not have been adopted if the first 10 amendments were not introduced at the same time. Those 10 amendments are the principal guarantors of our personal freedoms. The founding fathers set the bar very high to prevent frivolous amendments to the documents. I think they did an amazing job.
I like to point out that one of those amendments cancels out a previous amendment.
Where’d you hear that? In some speakeasy?
old crusader
Technically accurate, but misleading – Jefferson was in Europe on a diplomatic mission when the final draft was signed, thus his signature does not appear. However there is no doubt he materially participated in and contributed to the intellectual content & process leading to the document.
I used to think Americans were a little paranoid with the NRA rhetoric about needing all those guns to protect themselves from their Government.
With the AG’s trying this one on, they may have a point.
Cheers from Oz. 🙂
Crikey, I used to think Americans were a little paranoid with all the NRA rhetoric about needing those guns to protect themselves from their Government.
With the AG’s trying this one on, they may have a point.
Cheers from Oz. 🙂
“Yet, around the country, a group of state attorneys general have launched a misguided effort to silence the views and voices of those who disagree with them.”
Misguided? Heifer dust, as the late Charley Reese would have said.
Corrupt is the word they were looking for.
It seems reasonable to ask why they had to go to the Virgin Islands’ Attorney General to get this seeded.
Michael hart
You crazy? you ever been to New York at end of winter? You even been to the USVI at end of winter?
BOONDOGGLE, BABY!
Where’s the signature of the representative from the ACLU?
The ACLU, who exist to defend the Bill Of Rights, but consider the Second Amendment an unfortunate mistake, to be ignored.
The ACLU actually represented david duke on one ocassion. (the klan was discriminated against and not allowed to rent an auditorium in baton rouge) So they can actually put their money where their mouth is…
Fair enough. I’m holding my breath until they defend a poor person of color’s right to keep and bear arms.
The Greenie Empire Strikes Out.
Excellent! We all must stand up to maintain our freedom. There is a new book out that I just discovered, and it speaks of what happens in the future if the run-away hoard of self-serving mind controllers is allowed to continue on its current path. Check out “Time Protectors” for some eye-opening insight.
“The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion.” Edmund Burke, 1784
It would have been appropriate for the person who gave the following oath to take action:
“I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
I doubt he will, he is too busy saving the world.
I also doubt that United States Attorney General will act responsibly to defend the constitution:
“The Justice Department, as an institution, has poorly served not just institutional but constitutional interests in the last decade through its consistent effort to expand executive authority. These policies often appear inherently hostile to fundamental principles contained within our constitutional systems from the separation of powers to federalism, privacy, due process, press freedom, free speech, and international law.”
– Written Statement by Professor Jonathan Turley at the Confirmation Hearing For Attorney General Nominee Loretta Lynch United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate January 29, 2015
Did he actually take that oath?
Yes he did:
President Obama takes the Oath of Office
Wikipedia – Oath of office of the President of the United States
• Government is force
• Good ideas do not have to be forced on others
• Bad ideas should not be forced on others
• Liberty is necessary for the difference between good ideas and bad ideas to be revealed
dbstealey, Hayek has a revealing discussion regarding the use of the word “liberty” as it is understood by freedom-loving folks versus socialists who want to institute tyranny. The poor useful idiots who are clamoring for socialism are self-deluded believing that somehow individual liberty will be preserved even as “collective freedom” is enforced. The two ideas are diametrically opposed and mutually exclusive, but the enemies of individual liberty are making it sound so appealing and cozy that vast segments of our world are being lulled to sleep by the soothing rhetoric.
“The most effective way of making people accept the validity of the values they are to serve is to persuade them that they are really the same as those which they, or at least the best among them, have always held, but which were not properly understood or recognized before . . . And the most efficient technique to this end is to use the old words but change their meaning. Few traits of totalitarian regimes are at the same time so confusing to the superficial observer and yet so characteristic of the whole intellectual climate as the complete perversion of language, the change of meaning of the words by which the ideals of the new regimes are expressed. The worst sufferer in this respect is, of course, the word ‘liberty.’ It is a word used as freely in totalitarian states as elsewhere. Indeed, it could almost be said—and it should serve as a warning to us to be on our guard against all the tempters who promise us New Liberties for Old 5 —that wherever liberty as we understand it has been destroyed, this has almost always been done in the name of some new freedom promised to the people. Even among us we have ‘planners for freedom’ who promise us a ‘collective freedom for the group,’ the nature of which may be gathered from the fact that its advocate finds it necessary to assure us that ‘naturally the advent of planned freedom does not mean that all [sic] earlier forms of freedom must be abolished.’ Dr. Karl Mannheim, from whose work6 these sentences are taken, at least warns us that ‘a conception of freedom modelled on the preceding age is an obstacle to any real understanding of the problem.’ But his use of the word ‘freedom’ is as misleading as it is in the mouth of totalitarian politicians. Like their freedom, the ‘collective freedom’ he offers us is not the freedom of the members of society but the unlimited freedom of the planner to do with society what he pleases. It is the confusion of freedom with power carried to the extreme.”
Hayek, F. A. (2009-05-15). The Road to Serfdom: Text and Documents–The Definitive Edition: Text and Documents–The Definitive Edition (The Collected Works of F. A. Hayek, Volume 2) (Kindle Locations 4220-4237). University of Chicago Press. Kindle Edition.
Deus obentia est tyrannis seditionem.
Arrgghh! I fat-fingered my Latin. It should be “Deus obedientia est tyrannis seditionem.”
J.K. Johnson,
Yes, I’ve read plenty of Hayek and similar free market thinkers.
This may also interest you:
http://fooledbyrandomness.com/minority.pdf
Also consider von Mises’ stuff.
I have found that intellectual prejudice against private voluntary sources of human action, science and organization is irrational.
From Ludwig von Mises;
John
Galileo’s writings on heliocentrism were submitted 1615 to the Roman Inquisition which had claimed that Galileo and his followers were attempting to reinterpret the Bible, a violation of the Council of Trent and which looked dangerously like Protestantism. Galileo went to Rome to defend himself and his Copernican and biblical ideas. In early 1616, Monsignor Francesco Ingoli started a debate with Galileo, sending him an essay disputing the Copernican system. Galileo believed this essay was instrumental in the action against Copernicanism that followed. This was believed to be commissioned by the Inquisition to obtain an “expert opinion” on the controversy, and served as the “chief direct basis” for the Inquisition’s actions. The essay focused on eighteen physical and mathematical arguments against heliocentrism, borrowing from the arguments of Tycho Brahe, notably that heliocentrism required the stars to be much larger than the Sun.
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared heliocentrism to be “foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture.” The Inquisition found that the idea of the Earth’s movement “receives the same judgment in philosophy and… in regard to theological truth it is at least erroneous in faith”.
Pope Paul V ordered Galileo to abandon his opinion that heliocentrism was physically true (and) to completely abandon the opinion that the sun stands still at the center of the world and the earth moves, and henceforth not to hold, teach, or defend it in any way whatever, either orally or in writing.
Galileo had alienated one of his biggest and most powerful supporters, the Pope, and was called to Rome to defend his ideas and writings. Galileo was found “vehemently suspect of heresy” of having held the opinions
– that the Sun lies motionless at the centre of the universe
– that the Earth is not at its centre and moves
– that one may hold and defend an opinion as probable after it has been declared contrary to Holy Scripture.
He was required to “abjure, curse and detest” his opinions and was sentenced to formal imprisonment where he remained for the rest of his life. [abstracted from Galileo Galilei page in Wikipedia]
Galileo countered the accepted religious doctrine and was punished with life imprisonment … but he was right.
It was house arrest.
MarkW
…and that is good because…?
Are you fond of house arrest (I mean for yourself)?
It’s a lot easier to have visitors. It’s a lot easier to write letters, books, etc.
RickW
Julian Assange may disagree.
I believe he was denied physicians’ visits, though there may have been ways around this.
Do not forget that it was also the Academics of the day behind the push against Galileo, because he was SKEPTICAL OF THE CONSENSUS. Consensus science in those days being the Ptolmeic view, ie, geocentric.
Yes, it should have been obvious to readers from my content and the subject matter that this was pointed at the consensus as well as the outrageous NY AG et al. who are pushing this agenda. The piece references use of “expert witnesses” … one of the oldest propaganda tools and used often by our current sitting president (why else would he (putting his hand on the man’s shoulder) name Stephen Chu as his “Nobel prize winning Secretary of Energy.” Rings phony to me. Herr Doctor Goebbels would be proud. The essay mentions referring to 18 arguments based on physical principles why Galileo was wrong. Reminds me of the EPA rollouts of several of its rulings with attachments thousands of pages long with thousands of references. If you can’t convince ’em , flood/drown ’em in manuscripts and attachments. The concept of consensus would not exist if bureaucrats in the UN were not in charge of pushing policy.
More like a contemporary baby trial a la reactive and planned parenthood.
So CEI choose to give money to the people that push precisely for that attorney generals behavior?
Smart guys…
Who else are you going to give it too if you want to reach the same people?
Beyond that, it’s only a few thousand dollars for a full page ad.
It’s not like CEI is keeping them in caviar for the rest of the year.
Best I can do on Google:
2015 cost of national edition full page NYT ad – $160-180 + unidentified “more” for color.
2016 cost of national edition full page WSJ ad – $160,000; $210,000 for color
$160-180 should be $160,000-180,000
i’d like to (naively) think that this is a good sign… CEI going to the green media and the green media welcoming them with open arms. i like it when e’er i see cracks in the cult of climate change.
The lawless green machine is starting to look pale, they obviously don’t like a taste of their own medicine!
Looks like I’ll be moving from Ontario
To
Saskatchewan
Shorter title;
Gang Green spreading through our legal system.
Now some retired lawyer with a physics degree claims global warming is accelerating…
https://consortiumnews.com/2016/05/18/global-warming-accelerates/
Beware of lawyers…
Ha. Pretty good example of cherry-picking…
Free speech nails it.
Oh to be a billionaire and be able to finance similar adverts in all news outlets across the globe. Good luck to them. I sincerely hope this excellent move will make a difference.
“To silence criticism is to silence freedom”- Sidney Hook. The MO of suppressing dissenting views should be getting everyone very suspicious as to the motives of suppressing views. Those with something to hide, tyrants and con men do this sort of thing.
Even more suspect is that those promoting the lies have had ample opportunity to distance themselves from their lies. This is something that “normal” liars relish-an opportunity to move on to the next scam without fear of being uncovered. Very suspicious that the scaremongering is increasing- the propaganda is getting ever more desperate. Hopefully people take heed of this page.
Being from OZ it does seem that the USA is heading for a correction both on Wall St and politically I do hope that it does not end in tears.
I’m glad somebody called out these misguided climate crabs. Every time I read Schneiderman’s name it’s in conjunction with forcing his views on on others. Can’t NY get rid of him? How did someone like this AG come into office?
Party politics.
Don’t argue with them just cut off the supply of fossil fuelled energy to the states and territories concerned.