Collusion exposed between Governors, White House, and Tom Steyer's climate advocacy groups

E&E Legal Releases Report Exposing Coordination Between Governors, the Obama White House and the Tom Steyer-“Founded and Funded” Network of Advocacy Groups to Advance the “Climate” Agenda

Washington, D.C. — Today, the Energy & Environment Legal Institute (E&E Legal), a 501 (c) (3) watchdog group, released an investigative report, Private Interests & Public Office: Coordination Between Governors, the Obama White House and the Tom Steyer-“Founded and Funded” Network of Advocacy Groups to Advance the “Climate” Agenda (and an appendix of source documents), revealing a vast, coordinated, three-track effort by public officials and private interests to promote EPA’s expansive, overreaching and economically devastating greenhouse gas rules, specifically the section 111(d) regulation to shut the nation’s fleet of existing coal-fired power plants, as well as the December Paris climate treaty President Obama is expected to sign to replace the Kyoto Protocol.

“Our report pulls the curtain back on a carefully planned and heavily funded ‘orchestration’ by individuals who have placed their personal interests ahead of the public interest,” said Chris Horner, E&E Legal’s Senior Legal Fellow and the report’s author.

The report is the product of open records requests over the course of a year at the federal level and nearly 30 offices in over a dozen states. The exposé contains appendices with over a hundred pages of source emails and attachments. It details a campaign to use public offices, in very close collaboration with wealthy benefactors, to advance and defend President Obama’s climate change regulatory and treaty agenda. This quasi-governmental campaign involves more than a dozen governors’ offices, with a parallel advocacy network and political operation funded and staffed by activists paid through ideologically , economically and politically motivated donors.

The report released today points to emails obtained by E&E Legal’s campaign without litigation, but also in federal district court; others are the subject of oral arguments made last week in court in Richmond, Virginia, and a new suit just filed against the Governor of Kentucky. The latter complaint objects to a false “no records” claim — about records that this report proves do in fact exist, and even quotes from, but which are being kept from the public by a governor who claims to be appalled by EPA rules his office was quietly a “core group” promoter of for the past two years.

This report is timely given President Obama’s ongoing tour to promote the same EPA rules that these governors and “major environmental donors” scheme to promote in the correspondence released today. This includes a stop today at Harry Reid’s “clean energy economy” conference, curiously also sponsored by the same donors as those playing a leading role in today’s report.

Indeed these emails E&E Legal uncovered also show this campaign was developed with the early, active support and participation of the White House, which went beyond enthusiastically embracing the plan and follow up meetings and calls, to even directing the governors to what one green trade-press outlet calls a “shadowy group” affiliated with then-Chief of Staff John Podesta. The White House’s followup actions , as one governor’s aide praised them, were “moving dials”. Podesta also convinced the governors’ offices that their plan should be broken into separate, complementary pillars. The latest email obtained, from May of this year, shows the governors’ campaign arranging to coordinate with the State Department.

The scheme took shape at a meeting in the White House in December 2013, after which the Obama administration launched coordinated with the “core group” of activist Democrat governors to design one of what we see are three tracks to promote the climate agenda. One was run by the Steyer network and left-wing foundations. Another is run by governors with green groups, which are “useful” but whose “standard NGO shaming strategy might not deliver”. A third, run by the White House includes, in the words of a senior aide, “a few other tracks with private sector and unusual allies”.

Nearly every aspect of this effort, from the key early players to the funders and even the director the governors’ campaign hired — housed by some state’s taxpayers in the Hall of States in Washington, DC, overhead paid for by as-yet unknown means — has direct ties to a scandal involving “clean energy” donors and conflicts of interest, one which felled Oregon’s sitting governor earlier this year.

In what is possibly the most intriguing element, seemingly out of an episode of “House of Cards”, Democratic governors’ aides repeatedly reference a plan of “creative engagement” to “compel” certain electric utilities — those subject to their jurisdiction whose businesses cross lines into states led by Republicans — to bring “red state” governors around to support the EPA rules: “[B]ecause there are key utilities whose service territories cross red and blue states Governors in these states could quietly engineer a breakthrough strategy that compels utilities in key red states to lead the charge to win over a key Governor, rather than rely on a standard NGO-shaming strategy that might not deliver.”

The “core group” of governors also coordinated with Democratic mega-donor Tom Steyer and his managing partner, Ted White, who directed them to “affiliated groups that we founded and fund (such as NextGen Climate Action, or Next Generation, or AEE [Advanced Energy Economy]” . Those groups in turn underwrote consultants and activists to hand-hold governors through implementing the Obama EPA’s rules, keeping them from the clutches of the “just say no” states.

This core group soon expanded to more than a dozen states, coast-to- coast, embracing a four-point plan which they soon called the Governor’s Climate Compact or GCC, which was ultimately rebranded as the Governors’ Climate Accord or GCA and now goes by the name of the Governors Clean Energy Initiative (none of which have any internet footprint whatsoever, and begging the question who is indeed paying for its director and other overhead). The emails do reflect an awareness that the agenda’s lack of popularity in the “flyover states” necessitated a flexible timeline and keeping some offices’ involvement quiet, specifically citing elections as a concern.

“This is the 5th transparency report in a series that E&E Legal has published on the ‘green movement’ and its network of public, private, and business interests, and what is clear is that 1%-ers are using ‘climate’ policies to destroy politically disfavored industries in order to transfer wealth to the politically preferred,” said Craig Richardson, E&E Legal Executive Director. “The campaign by self-serving individuals must be made known to the public as policymakers consider this plan that will destroy parts of our economy and ruin the most efficient, affordable, and clean energy system ever created.”


The Energy & Environment Legal Institute (E&E Legal) is a 501(c)(3) organization engaged in strategic litigation, policy research, and public education on important energy and environmental issues. Primarily through its petition litigation and transparency practice areas, E&E Legal seeks to correct onerous federal and state policies that hinder the economy, increase the cost of energy, eliminate jobs, and do little or nothing to improve the environment.


0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Bloke down the pub
August 24, 2015 3:08 am

So the actions of a Potus lead to a collapse in the share price of certain companies, which are then bought on the cheap by his financial backers. Didn’t there used to be laws against that sort of thing?

Reply to  Bloke down the pub
August 24, 2015 3:52 am

And who makes and/or enforces the laws? The US today is reading a lot like the more depressing sections of “Atlas Shrugged”.

Reply to  spetzer86
August 24, 2015 6:36 am

Remember it is a new use of the law. To supposedly lock in the common good and force political power to be able to bind individuals to schemes they would never consent to.
Now factor in that every one of these Governors has to file its WIOA plan with federal Labor and Education that is now supposed to include all economic planning and Sector Strategies. Everything promotes collusion between Big Business, governments, and civil society organizations. What I called the Turchenko Plan in my book Credentialed to Destroy is now being promoted globally as the Triple Helix approach to planning society and an economy.

Reply to  spetzer86
August 24, 2015 7:36 am

Now I’m confused – Steyer obviously wants to ‘stop the engine of the world.’ Who is John Galt?

Reply to  spetzer86
August 24, 2015 7:52 am

Who would have thought that Rand, Orwell, and Huxley were all raging optimists about the future?
I have never fully read Atlas Shrugged, though I’ve read a fair amount of Rand’s philosophy. About halfway thru the current administration I tried to get back into the book, and even watch the movie version, and just couldn’t. It was such a perfect mirror of what’s going on now it was just too depressing to stick with it. I mean, the news is bad enough.
As for laws, we no longer have a republic. Remember Franklin said, in answer to a question of what kind of government the US had replied “A republic, if you can keep it.” Obviously we couldn’t.
As for laws, remember the only people who can legally profit from insider trading are members of the US Congress.

Michael C. Roberts
Reply to  spetzer86
August 24, 2015 10:00 am

As one who has read Atlas Shrugged (it being a difficult read), I agree with your assessment. Too bad there is not some safe haven, shielded from prying drones/satellites where capitalists may ensconce themselves, taking thier intiative and ideas (ideals?) with them, forsaking the “takers” society to it’s inevitable cancerous, self-destructive ends…unfortunately we will have to live in this world……the evil part of that novel does in some fashion appear to be our current condition. The idealist capitalist Utopian world described by Ayn Rand? Not likely to materialize anytime soon.

Reply to  spetzer86
August 24, 2015 11:14 am

Like 1984, Atlas Shrugged is used as an instruction manual by the enemies of liberty.

Reply to  spetzer86
August 24, 2015 1:47 pm

If Atlas Shruged was only the beginning!This whole matter is a conspiracy! I wonder who’s going to jail over this lie! The hell with the truth and feed them “you’r only going to die if you “stupid”people don’t listen to use. We know better than your lying eye’s and your knowledge!. The perps here need to go on trial before the American people and are forced to say this is BS.

John Silver
Reply to  Bloke down the pub
August 24, 2015 5:27 am

The US is a third world banana republic.

Follow the Money
Reply to  John Silver
August 24, 2015 7:07 pm

Hey, maybe we deserve it. We got so many Randian cult who believe Steyer is not a capitalist. Anyway, Steyer is a peanut compared to the nat gas and other coal competitor energy interests in this game.
“Standard NGO shaming.” Hey, are there different terms for when the pr firms of the Big Banks and energy companies create the fake environmental groups themselves, versus when they coopt existing groups, like Sierra Club? E & E Legal, question to you, thanks!

Reply to  Bloke down the pub
August 24, 2015 6:18 am

“Didn’t there used to be laws against that sort of thing?”
The USA has not followed its own laws in generations. This is typical of “corporatism” economies (also called fascist economies). Or as Nixon said, “if the President does it then it must be legal”. (paraphrased from memory)

Gregory Lawn
Reply to  markstoval
August 24, 2015 8:51 am

Obama has become the President Nixon wanted to be.

Reply to  Bloke down the pub
August 24, 2015 6:49 am
Reply to  Anto
August 24, 2015 12:56 pm

Trump is too smart not to be involved- those with access to capital are the beneficiaries of 6 years of zero short term rates & $8 trillion in deficit spending. Both unprecedented measures have, however, been insufficient to compensate for the extraordinary attacks on the free markets by the anti-capitalists led by Obama. The velocity of M2- despite 6 years of “recovery”- reveals the salient truth:

Tom in Denver
Reply to  Bloke down the pub
August 24, 2015 7:10 am

I thought it was strange when I had heard that George Soros was buying up coal stocks last week. Now it all makes sense. Soros must be in on this also!

Reply to  Tom in Denver
August 24, 2015 7:44 am

Soros is into buy low, sell high (and taking action to force lows to happen, so he can create his buying opportunities) – he knows Peabody coal should bounce back up following the 2016 US election. BTW, All stocks just went on sale today – any guesses when it hits the real bottom, so I can time my buying?

Reply to  Tom in Denver
August 24, 2015 8:39 am

Bottom line: coal keeps people from dying of hypothermia during harsh winters. There’s gotta be votes in that.

Reply to  Tom in Denver
August 24, 2015 9:01 am

Maybe it’s time to call in a few of the other 1%ers to take care of these 1%ers. ; ) There really needs to be some impeachments, recalls and prosecutions. Wonder if billionaire Trump is involved in any way or what he’ll say on the matter?

ferd berple
Reply to  Bloke down the pub
August 24, 2015 11:05 am

1%-ers are using ‘climate’ policies to destroy politically disfavored industries in order to transfer wealth to the politically preferred
Elizabeth Warren, Senate Democrat has spoken out against the 1%-ers that control the lions share of the wealth in the US and are steadily increasing this share at the expense of the middle class.
Clinton has started to parrot much of Warren’s rhetoric, but continues to vote in favor of the 1%-ers that run Wall Street. Which explains why Sanders continues to outdraw Clinton, and why Biden met with Warren over the weekend.
Top Democrats like Obama and Clinton talk a lot about the middle class, but behind the scenes they are owned lock-stock-and-barrel by their biggest donors. It is ALL about taking from the poor to give to the rich, all the while telling the poor how much better off they will be in the future.
Only thing is, the future never comes. It remains stubbornly out of reach in the future. The group that’s seen the slowest unemployment recovery under Obama? Black Americans.

Reply to  ferd berple
August 24, 2015 11:32 am

Vermont shut down 55% of its electric power supply. Now the state is scambling around to find replacement sources for the lost power supply. Vermont now has signed onto cap-and-trade with Quebec. Looking to Quebec for hydro-power for electricity supply?
And Sanders for president?

Reply to  ferd berple
August 24, 2015 3:44 pm

“It is ALL about taking from the poor to give to the rich”
That is beyond stupid. Poor means they don’t have anything.
How much can you take from zero???

Reply to  ferd berple
August 24, 2015 5:56 pm

Gamecock August 24, 2015 at 3:44 pm

“It is ALL about taking from the poor to give to the rich”
That is beyond stupid. Poor means they don’t have anything.
How much can you take from zero???

THAT is beyond stupid. “Poor” means: has very little. And the mega wealthy do shamelessly pilfer even a few pennies from the poor.
Case in point: The One Laptop Per Child initiative (OLPC) was aimed at producing a sub-$100 laptop for underdeveloped nations, to help bring them into the advanced world.
But little Billie Gates’ Microsoft inveigled the project to include a few extra dollars’ of hardware (paid for by the poor) so that the machines would run Windows XP, supplied at $3, money into billionaire Billy’s pocket, directly out of the pockets of the poor. How disgusting! How shameful!
So, Gamecock, anonymous and (I’ll assume) exceptionally naive, yes, given even the tiniest opportunity, the fabulously wealthy will indeed take every opportunity to enrich themselves, regardless of cost to the poor, the environment, or wildlife. The windmill scam is a perfect example.

Curious George
Reply to  ferd berple
August 24, 2015 6:46 pm

Gamecock, you must be rich – otherwise you would not have an Internet connection.

Reply to  ferd berple
August 25, 2015 11:16 am

The rich got rich by taking from people who don’t have anything. BRILLIANT!!!

Pete J.
Reply to  Bloke down the pub
August 24, 2015 12:20 pm

Following the Nixon-Watergate era congress passed a number of laws to make the Government’s operations more transparent, to modernize the 1966 FOIA. Among a number of these there was The Sunshine Act of 1976, which provides that ‘every portion of every meeting of an agency shall be open to public observation.’ It enumerates the same ten FOIA exemptions for categories of information that need not be disclosed with respect to Open Meetings, including:
1) information relating to national defense,
2) related solely to internal personnel rules and practices,
3) related to accusing a person of a crime,
4) related to information where disclosure would constitute a breach of privacy,
5) related to investigatory records where the information would harm the proceedings,
6) related to information which would lead to financial speculation or endanger the stability of any financial
institution, and
7) related to the agency’s participation in legal proceedings.
Because these Acts were intended to shed light on Republican shenanigans Democrats don’t think they should apply to them because most all of their conduct it seems relies on extra-legal actions (ie, IRS targeting of conservatives, etc.). The Dems were up in arms over the “secret” meetings Cheney held in the White House in the run up to the Iraq war but were denied this info for obvious reasons. If the Environmental/Marxist activist policies of this administration is seen in the same war-like manner they do themselves (eg, recent DoD claims that Climate Change is a national security concern), their fascist methods of promulgating these onerous climate change rules make much more sense to us common, patriotic Americans who still believe in the guiding principles of the Constitution.
Ironically, (Bill) Clinton signed into law The Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments of 1996 (E-FOIA) that stated that all agencies are required by statute to make certain types of records, created by the agency on or after November 1, 1996, available electronically.
Before George W Bush’s term ended he signed The OPEN Government Act of 2007, which the Democrats seem to have a hard time embracing. It specifically addresses data sources used to generate reports; “shall make the raw statistical data used in its reports available electronically…”. It also redefines the definition of an agency “record” to include information held for an agency by a government contractor.

Reply to  Pete J.
August 24, 2015 3:38 pm

Obviously the information relates to the govt’s war making powers. It’s just that the govt is waging war on it’s own citizens.

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  Pete J.
August 24, 2015 5:17 pm

Is that why they call it “war on climate”?

Reply to  Bloke down the pub
August 24, 2015 3:33 pm

There are still laws against such things. The problem is that the only people who have the authority to enforce such laws, are the same people who are currently ignoring said laws.
The fox is guarding the henhouse.

Reply to  Bloke down the pub
August 24, 2015 11:00 pm

Remember Washington DC is Incorperated. I am not sure what that all implies but from what I know it is not very good for the citizens of the rest of the USA. (insider trading).

Margaret Smith
August 24, 2015 3:13 am

Outrageous! Something similar happening in Europe.

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  Margaret Smith
August 24, 2015 5:18 pm

Something similar happening in every nation on earth.

August 24, 2015 3:28 am

Where’s Lew and the rest of the nutters when there’s a real conspiracy to be discussed?

August 24, 2015 3:29 am

I’m shocked! Shocked, I tell you!… nothing new under the sun.
Yes, this is shocking based on its depravity, but is anyone really surprised? This is only consistent with the level of corrupt, self-serving behavior we have come to expect from these groups.

August 24, 2015 3:32 am

Is any of this illegal?

Reply to  Slywolfe
August 24, 2015 4:33 am

Most likely not, but that seems to matter not to anything and anyone involved in the BHO regime….

Reply to  Slywolfe
August 24, 2015 4:44 am

Probably not. But the word “collusion” is so much more powerful than political collaboration between individuals and groups that agree on a certain policy, because it implies that it is illegal.
I liked the article yesterday a lot better, the one on the $1.5 trillion network of profit being made on global warming, across the spectrum of recipients. That may, or may not, be illegal but somewhere down in there there is at least a pretty strong chance of following the money into the pockets of specific politicians, violations of laws on insider trading, the use of advocacy conduits to transfer cash from interested parties to politicians, politicians quietly investing money in “green” companies whose business activities they just happen to support or advocate in law. Those things are illegal. But without enough direct evidence that they are happening in any specific case, the odds of anything being done by way of special congressional oversight or federal investigation are slender indeed.
This year. In three years, in five years, no matter who wins the election we may see the climate itself “vote”. And its vote is the only one that really matters, because just as nothing they have done so far has affected supposed global warming due to CO2 in the slightest, nothing they are going to do in the near future is either. They cannot make the planet warm any more than they can make it cool. If the Earth continues to warm very slowly, remain nearly neutral, or slowly cools — all reasonably likely given the current range of “likely” climate sensitivity — the error bars on a rapidly descending total climate sensitivity will continue to shrink to an ever lower figure until it systematically excludes the predicted catastrophe.
Or, of course, it will crank back up. That is always possible. Again, it is possible even without the help of CO2. The climate is a chaotic system, and global average temperature is not a stationary process on any reasonable timescale.

Reply to  rgbatduke
August 24, 2015 5:39 am

Didn’t Nixon say “When the president does it, it’s legal”?
Any minions caught will be pardoned.

John Peter
Reply to  rgbatduke
August 24, 2015 5:58 am

Seems to me that rgbatduke has forgotten about Karl and his ilk to make sure the World keeps warming regardless. This will not stop unless the USA elects a republican to become the next President and maintains a republican majority in the two houses. Mrs Clinton has already promised to further the “good work” of the current President. In Fact I would not put it past a future democratic president to get the right people to “run” RSS and UAH if required. It will not be acceptable if these two organizations continue to defy the wishes of a democrat as leader of the World’s greatest country.

richard verney
Reply to  rgbatduke
August 24, 2015 6:22 am

I made similar comments at the time of AR5, and suggested that unless there is ‘rapid’ warming in the coming next 5 years, there will not be an AR6.
If there is no material warming in the run up to 2019/20, as the ‘pause’ lengthens in the run up to AR6, there will be ever more papers coming forward each one suggesting an ever lower figure for Climate Sensitivity. It will be difficult to ignore these papers and not to give weight to say the papers published from 2012 onwards.
Further, the already glaring disparity between model projections and the ‘observed’ temperature anomaly will become increasingly difficult to ignore, and the only genuine response would be an admission that the models are running hot since Climate Sensitivity is far lower than modelled, and not scary (ie., will not lead to catastrophic warming within the coming 100 to 200 years).
Paris 2015 may not be the last opportunity to save the world, but it is likely the last opportunity to keep the gravy train rolling. But since China in Rio indicated that they would do nothing before 2020, and it now appears that this has lengthened through to mid 2030s, and it is unlikely that India or Russia will play ball, Paris is likely to be little more than hot air, and nothing of substance will be achieved. Still less time to see the results of any agreement.
And then, as you say, the climate may itself have voted, and the result may be in by the time AR6 comes along.
The next 5 years or so will be interesting. And if there is no warming, the blame game will begin since huge sums have been wasted on what appears to be a matter over which man has little control or ability to alter outcomes, the policy responses never achieved the primary objective of reducing CO2 emissions be a substantial amount (it was just a fortuity that shale came along and the US was able to switch from coal to gas), and such modest warming that has actually occurred has been entirely beneficial, ditto the extra CO2 in the atmosphere that has greened the globe.

Harry Passfield
Reply to  rgbatduke
August 24, 2015 6:57 am

RGB: Of course, if the climate does take a down-turn – that ‘the scientists’ can agree has happened – the Green Brigade will just claim that all the (expensive) actions they called for have started to work. Then, they will claim that we need to double-down on the (expensive) actions so that we call all be saved.

Reply to  rgbatduke
August 24, 2015 10:56 am

RGB: Of course, if the climate does take a down-turn – that ‘the scientists’ can agree has happened – the Green Brigade will just claim that all the (expensive) actions they called for have started to work. Then, they will claim that we need to double-down on the (expensive) actions so that we call all be saved.

No. Because CO2 will have continued to go on up on pretty much the same, most aggressive track (unless fusion is somehow perfected in the next five years). It really is going to be a stark contrast if it remains neutral to cools over an interval of 20 years with CO2 following the most aggressive track up.
So far, not one single thing that has been done to ameliorate global warming has had any discernible effect on the CO2 curve, which has proven quite resilient. The one thing that would have had an effect on the rate of increase — widespread adoption of fracked natural gas — has been more than cancelled by new Indian and Chinese coal burning plants. China is getting ready to add an enormous new capacity, and over 80% of that new capacity will be new coal. India, too, has looked that the real “catastrophe”, the one consisting of the world’s two-plus billion poorest people (1/4 to 1/3 of which live in India, another 1/4 to 1/3 in China) and made the observation that it is a sure thing catastrophe to force those people to continue to live in 17th century squalor in the 21st century right now versus dealing with possible but highly uncertain “catastrophic” consequences of additional CO2 in sixty years.
Would you fall back to an 18th or 19th century standard of living, give up electricity itself, all to “save the world”? Of course not. Nobody sane would, especially when there is no concrete evidence that “the world” is in any particular danger. And yet all of those Greens who advocate for the immediate closing of coal plants (and who are equally adamently against fission to replace it) would force that upon us. IMO, one of many reasons CAGW flourishes is that it is the choo-choo of pure racism and greed. As we raise the price of electricity in completely artificial ways, we increase the “development gap” between the world’s richest, who can tolerate more expensive electricity and even comparatively thrive on it, and the world’s poorest, who are prevented from developing things like light, housing, clean water, sewage systems, industry, health care, food production, jobs. All of these things are fueled by electricity, mostly electricity made by burning coal. Make that more expensive, you stretch out the years of continued global poverty into decades and beyond, allowing the richest people in the world to remain rich without the pesky competition from a billion Chinese and Indians combined.
India and China won’t play along, of course, any more than the US will when it becomes clear that what Obama is talking about is (to have any real effect at all) precisely that — returning to a world unseen since the 1800’s if not earlier still. No air conditioning. No heat in the winter. Rationed access to electricity. Some large government agency that distributes limited electrical power to “select” corporations. Hey, what could go wrong?

Reply to  rgbatduke
August 24, 2015 11:34 am

rgb points out that other countries are not going to make their citizens do without electricity just to keep the eco crowd happy. No climate alarmist who posts here ever says they will do without fossil fuel power, either. They just want to instruct the po’ folks in other countries how they should live their lives.
But what they never mention is that the rise in CO2 is measurably ‘greening’ the planet, thus holding down the cost of food. Agricultural productivity is rising in lockstep with rising CO2.
About a third of the planet’s population subsists on less than $2 a day. If CO2 was lowered to 350 ppm as the eco-crowd demands, it would cause malnutrition and in some places, mass starvation. There’s not much discretionary spending in the budget living on $2 a day.
But the eco contingent doesn’t care, any more than they care about the millions of bats, birds, and apex raptors like eagles, ospreys, owls and falcons that are being killed by windmills, and set afire by ‘concentrated solar’ plants.
The climate alarmist crowd is silent ONLY because Greenpeace and similar lobby groups have remained silent. Their hypocrisy is so thick you could cut it with a knife. If a conservative business or representative had done the same thing, their howling would be heard around the world, 24/7/365.
Every climate alarmist who remains silent about these things is a hypocrite without a conscience. There are a lot of those around, aren’t there?

Reply to  rgbatduke
August 24, 2015 3:39 pm

Apparently ignoring the law, is no longer illegal, so long as rgbatduke likes what you are trying to do.

Reply to  rgbatduke
August 24, 2015 7:59 pm

richard verney August 24, 2015 at 6:22 am says:
“…as the ‘pause’ lengthens in the run up to AR6, there will be ever more papers coming forward each one suggesting an ever lower figure for Climate Sensitivity. …… the climate may itself have voted, and the result may be in by the time AR6 comes along…..The next 5 years or so will be interesting. And if there is no warming, the blame game will begin since huge sums have been wasted on what appears to be a matter over which man has little control or ability to alter outcomes, the policy responses never achieved the primary objective of reducing CO2 emissions be a substantial amount…..”
First, Climate Sensitivity is already zero. You have to be blind not to notice that doubling or tripling carbon dioxide right now and in any foreseeable future will not give any warming whatsoever.
Second, climate has already voted by introducing us to two hiatuses and proving that there is no such thing as greenhouse warming.
Third, The blame game you hope to see five years in the future should be going on right now but it is very skillfully suppressed.There is no question that the mitigation measures used are a total and irresponsible waste of resources.
The first two are tied in with MGT, the Miskolczi greenhouse theory. MGT was first introduced by Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi, Hungarian scientist, in 2007. It was blacklisted for its predictions, among which was physics of the present day hiatus. IPCC still uses the Arrhenius greenhouse theory to make their climate predictions. According to Arrhenius, addition of carbon dioxide to air will create warming through its greenhouse effect,the absorption of ambient IR radiation and conversion of its ennergy to heat. MGT differs from Arrhenius in being able to handle absorption of IR by several GHG-s simultaneously, while Arrhenius can handle only one, carbon dioxide. According to MGT, carbon dioxide and water vapor in the atmosphere form a joint optimal absorption window in the infrared whose optical thickness is 1.87. This value comes from the analysis of radiosonde data. If you now add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere it will start to absorb in the IR just as Arrhenius says. But this will increase the optical thickness. And as soon as this happens water vapor will start to diminish. rain out, and the original optical thickness is restored. The added carbon dioxide will of course continue to absorb but the reduction of water vapor has lowered the total absorption enough to prevent any greenhouse warming from happening. As a result, we observe that carbon dioxide is increasing but the temperature is not. But this is exactly what is happening now with the present hiatus and happened also with the previous hiatus in the eighties and nineties. I discovered its existence while doing research for my book “What Warming?” in 2008. It lasted from 1979 to 1997, an 18 year stretch. It is shown with satellite data as figure 15 in the book. Ground-based version, I discovered had been written over by a fake warming called “late twentieth century warming.” I also discovered that HadCRUT3 was involved in fabricating this cover-up and even put a warning about it into the preface of the book. Nothing happened and I soon found that the cover-up also involved GISS and NCDC temperature producers. That fake warming extended into the twenty-first century and caused the hiatus, which is entirely level in satellite data, to take on a slight warming trend. I regard this as entirely phony and suggest that only satellite temperature data can be trusted when there is a choice available. There are more than two dozen scholarly papers out trying to prove that there is no hiatus. They have not succeeded. Some are humorous when in all seriousness they look for the lost heat on the ocean bottom. Two papers have made a splash – one by Karl and one by Trenberth. I regard their basic data questionable and their understanding of the problem even more so.
As to mitigation measures, they are costing the world one billion dollars a day and have no chance of changing our climate. As a taxpayer I strenuously object to any money being spent to fight an imaginary global warming.

Reply to  rgbatduke
August 24, 2015 11:10 pm

@ dbstealy, “Their hypocrisy is so thick you could cut it with a knife.”
Boy oh boy it is so thick you need a chainsaw!

Reply to  rgbatduke
August 25, 2015 12:06 pm

what we do know is that IF there were really a way to scrub CO2 out of the atmosphere, the greens would throw the switch and kill us all ala the movie Snowpiercer. That is the scary part.

Tom J
Reply to  Slywolfe
August 24, 2015 4:58 am

Only if Eric Holder says it is.

Tom J
Reply to  Tom J
August 24, 2015 5:08 am

Whoops; it’s Loretta Lynch. But, after all, “What difference does it make?”

Mark from the Midwest
Reply to  Slywolfe
August 24, 2015 4:59 am

There probably isn’t a case against any government official in their official capacity, but if anyone is seen trading stocks that are influenced by all of this the more recent legal theories on insider trading can probably used against them.

Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
August 24, 2015 11:13 pm

Washington DC is incorporated, not sure what that means as far as insider trading is concerned but it does sound a “little” corrupt !

Reply to  Slywolfe
August 24, 2015 6:01 am

Remember, we’re now living in a county where it looks like half of it believes that hiding classified information on your own private email server, in order to obstruct a judicial investigation, wasn’t illegal.
The left today wants an emperor, and they want their emperor to be above any puny laws and to rule by decree. They don’t care if their new god-kings break any puny human “laws”.
And that is ALL the left wants anymore. They believe in nothing but power, and they agitate for nothing but Power at any cost. Power to do what? Power to destroy anyone who won’t bow down and worship their new gods, that’s what.
And that is ALL this political game is about anymore. There are no “ideals”. There are no “beliefs”. There are no “standards”, and there are no morals. There is just the quest for power, and the desire to use it to destroy. Accept that proposition, and everything becomes very easy to understand.

Reply to  wws
August 24, 2015 3:41 pm

At least half this country defines legal and illegal based on who benefits. Much as their morality is now defined on whether or not they benefit.

August 24, 2015 3:40 am

very nice work by the investigators.
as bloke down the pub said..laws against ..
but then while everyone sledges china etc for dodgy the EU and USA are no better
just more hypocritical and better hidden

Reply to  ozspeaksup
August 24, 2015 3:51 am

The Obama administration is not American.

Reply to  Slywolfe
August 24, 2015 4:33 am

“The Obama administration is not American.”
That may be true, but unfortunately he’s driving the America bus. I know a lot of everyday Americans that are concerned at the speed of our bus on this bump road. Makes me wonder if there is a sign that said “Bridge Out Ahead”, and we blew past it?

Reply to  Paul
August 24, 2015 5:31 am

We “blew past it” in 2012.

Reply to  Slywolfe
August 24, 2015 4:37 am

He really is trying to destroy the USA. I thought the “Manchurian Candidate”was only an implausible piece of fiction. Unbelievably, it’s seems to have come true before our very eyes. I think it will get far worse before it gets better….

Reply to  Slywolfe
August 24, 2015 6:57 am

“We “blew past it” in 2012.”
Yep, visit “Cheaper than Dirt” and “Aim Surplus” while (IF) you can…

Phillip Bratby
August 24, 2015 4:16 am

Government corruption. Never.

August 24, 2015 4:39 am

Slywolfe asked the key question

Reply to  Warrenlb
August 24, 2015 4:42 am

Skywolfe asked the key question: is any of this illegal? Sounds pretty normal.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  warrenlb
August 24, 2015 4:51 am

It depends on what the meaning of “is” is.

Tom J
Reply to  warrenlb
August 24, 2015 5:04 am

You’ve never been involved in ongoing civil litigation have you? You’d discover that the legality of things are not determined by equality under the law, nor by justice or truth, but instead by the ability to pay. These are very wealthy people. They will stay that way (or add to it) while we’re impoverished.

Sun Spot
Reply to  warrenlb
August 24, 2015 6:23 am

Tom J understands

ferd berple
Reply to  warrenlb
August 24, 2015 11:20 am

the legality of things are not determined by equality under the law, nor by justice or truth
the legal system is trial by combat, with paid gladiators doing battle. the more you are willing to pay, the mightier the gladiator you can hire.
The only thing that has changed in the past 1000 years is the choice of weapons the gladiators wield. on occasion the stronger gladiator might stumble and the weaker gladiator win, but this is not the rule.
Truth and Justice sit in judgment over the battle. They are not participants. Thus one should not expect them to win the day.

August 24, 2015 4:55 am

Why did this article not name the dozen or so governors?

Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
August 24, 2015 5:25 am

Because it’s a digest of a larger report, to which a link is given.

Bubba Cow
Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
August 24, 2015 5:35 am

from the pdf report – contacts across states
– Sam Ricketts (Washington State Gov. Inslee)
– Alexander Cochran (New York Gov. Cuomo)
– Blake Oshiro (Hawaii Gov. Abercrombie)
– Dana Thompson (Maryland Gov. O’Malley)
– Emily Kuiken, Garth Spencer (Delaware Gov. Markell)
– Jena Griswold (Colorado Gov. Hikcenlooper)
– Pamela Walsh (New Hampshire Gov. Hassan)
– Rebecca Byers (Kentucky Gov. Beshear)
– Sam Reid (unknown, using a private email account)
– Valerie Young (of States Services Organization, a joint venture of the Council of
State Governments, the National Conference of State Legislatures and the National
Governors Association)
– William Richard (private email account but a consultant for Minnesota Gov.
– Alyson Richards (Vermont Gov. Shumlin)
– Shayna Cherry, Kevin Greene, and Lauren Eiten (Illinois Governor Quinn), and
Jonathan Feipel, a Quinn appointee as Executive Director of the Illinois Commerce
– Traci DeShazor, Maribel Ramos (Virginia Gov. McAuliffe)

Tom J
Reply to  Bubba Cow
August 24, 2015 6:12 am

It’s funny, Bubba. You didn’t add the party affiliation of any of those governors. But, then again you didn’t have to, did you? It took a nanosecond to realize that all of ’em, or almost all, are all Democrats. Best wishes to you, sir.
BTW: No handle could possibly top ‘bubba cow.’

Bubba Cow
Reply to  Bubba Cow
August 24, 2015 1:01 pm

Thanks, Tom – glad you’re so fast. Fairly transparent list (ah, transparency!!)
Sorry I had to copy, paste, and leave for my paying job so we can buy some of that elusive electricity to cook supper.

Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
August 24, 2015 3:40 pm

I don’t require a listing to know the idiot we have as Governor in WA is one of them.

Tony Hansen
August 24, 2015 4:57 am

Well its not at all likely to be true, is it?.
If it were, wouldn’t we see people like Soros buying coal shares at fire sale prices?
Oh, hang on…

Shawn Marshall
August 24, 2015 5:17 am

Stealth totalitarianism. The combination and collusion of immoral businessmen and immoral government men is a virulent form of fascism. These people are enemies of the people and enemies of freedom. As our founders knew so well, a government too powerful is a tyranny.

Leo Morgan
August 24, 2015 5:42 am

This all comes as a complete surprise to George Soros, who had no idea that buying the campaign for Obama would mean he’d end up with a fortune in Coal shares so very cheaply.

James at 48
Reply to  Leo Morgan
August 24, 2015 9:14 am

Sound more like a game plan to me.

August 24, 2015 5:58 am

It’s time for WUWT to go full out to expose and to destroy these destroyers. IMHO, you have been hedging your bets and remain too polite. Take a look at one place of serious opposition — conservativetreehouse-c. It seems to me like it’s now or never. Everything will be sucked out of the United States into elite pockets leaving us vulnerable to totalitarians.

John Peter
August 24, 2015 6:03 am

For a European I am finding the quietness and lack of action of a Congress dominated by the Republican party quite amazing. At least they have control over committees and purse strings. What’s happening?

Tom J
Reply to  John Peter
August 24, 2015 6:40 am

I suspect Obama has accumulated embarrassing information on them. Look at what happened to Democrat Senator Menendez once he voiced opposition to the Iran nuclear deal. But nothing happens to Harry Reid who was involved in the same scandal as Menendez. Look at what happened to General Petraeous within a week of the 2012 election outcome. The House and Senate are afraid of the thug.

James at 48
Reply to  Tom J
August 24, 2015 9:13 am

It’s simpler than that. A majority of the Congressional criminals also subscribe to a pack of lies.

Reply to  Tom J
August 24, 2015 3:44 pm

Most Republicans have no objection to big govt in principle. It’s just that they want to be the ones in a position to skim from it.

Mike Henderson
Reply to  Tom J
August 24, 2015 4:01 pm

“For a European I am finding the quietness and lack of action of a Congress dominated by the Republican party quite amazing.”
Look for Progressives on both sides of the aisle.

Reply to  Tom J
August 24, 2015 4:37 pm

blackmail. it doesn’t have to be you; it can be family members.
blackmail. it doesn’t have to be true; it can be generated. it only has to be believed by the public and your wife or children in order to be threatening. forensic digital experts have declared Obama’s birth certificate to be bogus; even if it is not, it ought to still raise eyebrows if bona fide forensic experts declare it fake. The point is that the public will believe what they want to believe regardless of expert opinion.

Reply to  Tom J
August 25, 2015 10:54 am

My hunch is that it’s simply that they’re chickens**t’s. They’re mildly corrupt country club types, used to getting along while scoring some points for their side, who when faced with real revolutionaries are totally out of their depth and outside their comfort zone.

Reply to  John Peter
August 24, 2015 10:14 am

Yes, Congress has to authorize new Treaties with a supermajority in favor. But when Obama negotiated this Iran deal, the Republicans in Congress passed an early bill to make it so that they would accept the treaty unless Congress managed to vote against it with a supermajority. They turned the entire process on its head. The mainstream Republican party is just as committed to the Obama agenda as he is. The Republican leadership has more hatred toward conservatives in their own party than they do of anyone in the other party. It’s a sad state of affairs.

Reply to  KTM
August 25, 2015 10:56 am

You mean all those guys running for president are basically pro-Obama? Come on.

August 24, 2015 6:11 am

Everywhere on WUWT we see comments about conspiracy among the scientists of the world (actually, they ALL must be in on it, since no peer-reviewed paper disputes AGW), and now we see comments such as “Everything will be sucked out of the United States into elite pockets leaving us vulnerable to totalitarians.” and “Stealth totalitarianism. The combination and collusion of immoral businessmen and immoral government men is a virulent form of fascism.”
Could these conspiracy mantras have the same psychological root?
[or could warren simply be blind to the material presented in this article because he has a routinely demonstrated hateful bias against climate skeptics? -mod]

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  warrenlb
August 24, 2015 8:04 am

Or, could Warren #s straw man and ad hominem flailings be the work of a Warmist troll desperate to keep his CAGW ideology which is foundering on the rocks of reality from going down?
So many questions.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
August 24, 2015 9:19 am

yah, but…but… hottest July ever.

Gerald Machnee
Reply to  warrenlb
August 24, 2015 8:25 am

RE warrenlb:
“(actually, they ALL must be in on it, since no peer-reviewed paper disputes AGW”
Warren should have said “I do not read peer-reviewed papers that dispute AGW”.

Reply to  Gerald Machnee
August 25, 2015 5:49 am

If you believe there are peer-reviewed papers disputing AGW, please post.

Reply to  warrenlb
August 24, 2015 9:35 am

So at a little Mom and Pop bodega in Hell’s Kitchen recent immigrant owner Mario arrives to open up and discovers his front door glass busted out. He’s scared and angry at the same time as he sets out to clean up and try to fix it when these two guys walk up dressed in nice suits and the little one talks to him with great empathy about how the neighborhood is going to hell and stuff like this shouldn’t happen to hard working store owners like Mario. He asks Mario if he’s a member of the local “business association” because if he is stuff like this just wouldn’t happen.
No Mario don’t know nothing about no business association. So the little guy explains that he really needs to join. All his neighborhood businesses are part of it and the dues are only $300 a month. If Mario would join there wouldn’t be any more trouble like this because the association would look out for him. Well, Mario didn’t just fall off the turnip truck and he gets the idea so he ponies up his dues and as his visitors set out over the broken glass the little guy says he knows a guy who could fix this right up and he’ll send that guy by and he’ll give Mario a real good price to put new glass in his door.
Well the big and little guy spend most the morning collecting association dues and arranging deals to supply goods and services all over Hell’s Kitchen. Then they go to the social club and play cards the rest of the afternoon until a limo pulls up at the social club and and older fella that lives up in a penthouse suite at the Waldorf gets out and all the guys at the club greet him like a father.
Warren takes the late J Edgar Hoover’s position “there’s no such thing as organized crime”

Reply to  fossilsage
August 24, 2015 11:48 pm

And it has been going on for thousands of years, that little thing called “history repeating itself”
If there is any thing wrong with the human race it is a disease called “lack of memory” and the learning process that should be associated with it. I am not trying to be harsh but is Alzheimer and similar brain deterioration problems a fact of our societies lack of advancement?

Peter Miller
Reply to  warrenlb
August 24, 2015 9:39 am

Well, I for one, used to think climate alarmism was mostly ‘noble cause corruption’, but this type of disclosure suggests that it is much more conspiracy based, funded by one or more unscrupulous and egotistical greenie billionaires.

Reply to  warrenlb
August 24, 2015 1:08 pm

Dispute CAGW = Lose your taxpayer-funded job
It’s as simple as that.

Reply to  warrenlb
August 24, 2015 3:46 pm

warrenlb is getting even more desperate by the day.
His lies about how all the scientists agree with him are getting more extreme, and more pathetic at the same time.
Watch and learn children, this is what happens to a brain that overdoses on liberalism.

Reply to  MarkW
August 24, 2015 4:17 pm

Yes, warrenlb is clueless. When he looks at a very diverse group of organizations, some of which have nothing whatever to do with climate issues or even with science, he gets their intended message, which is directed at people like him.
But when rational folks look at all those different groups saying excactly the same thing, with no credible measurements quantifying their ‘dangerous man-made global warming’ narrative, all we see are a bunch of bought-and-paid-for rent seekers.
Common sense tells us that twenty or thirty different organizations are not going to all have the exact same message, especially when there is no measurable supporting data.
Prof. Richard Lindzen wrote a paper in which he showed that just a few — sometimes only one or two — activists on an organization’s Board can get resolutions passed. They just schmooze, and trade votes. They are single-minded, and eventually the easy way out for the Board is to accommodate them. Lindzen names names, so he’s not just giving his opinion.
That’s what has happened, and that’s why they all have the the same ‘dangerous man-made global warming’ narrative. But anyone familiar with human nature knows that dozens of diverse organizations will not have the exact same point of view, especially when every alarming prediction over the past couple of decades has been flat wrong.
It’s preposterous to think this group-think is happening by random chance, or because all the various Boards have thoroughly discussed the science involved before passing their resolutions.
If warrenlb believes that, it’s only because of the confirmation bias that controls him. But rational folks know better.

Reply to  MarkW
August 25, 2015 5:29 am

Liberalism? No thanks. I’m a lifelong Conservative Republican who, unlike D**s, follows the Science.

Reply to  warrenlb
August 25, 2015 5:56 am

Liberalism? No thanks. I’m a lifelong Conservative Republican who, unlike D**s, follows the Science.

You are free to claim that you are a conservative; we are (so far) free to doubt your claim. Your liberal government-funded politicians who support fully the global warming claims made by their government-funded self-called “scientists” to create a 31 trillion dollar global warming carbon-trading scheme and 1.3 trillion in new carbon taxes are working very, very hard to deny us the right to even express such opposition.

Reply to  MarkW
August 25, 2015 6:37 am

You say: “You are free to claim that you are a conservative; we are (so far) free to doubt your claim. Your liberal government-funded politicians who support fully the global warming claims made by their government-funded self-called “scientists” to create a 31 trillion dollar global warming carbon-trading scheme and 1.3 trillion in new carbon taxes are working very, very hard to deny us the right to even express such opposition. ”
‘Doubting’ seems to be the only thought process D**rs know. I believe in following peer-reviewed Science, and the growing number of Republicans such as Bob Inglis of South Carolina, and others, who advocate for action:

Sun Spot
August 24, 2015 6:26 am

do any of the American’s here have an answer for John P. ??

Reply to  Sun Spot
August 24, 2015 8:25 am

Donald Trump

Reply to  John G.
August 24, 2015 3:48 pm

Trump has gotten fat at the govt trough for years. He even brags about buying politicians.
He is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Reply to  John G.
August 24, 2015 4:27 pm

Well Mark, we’ve tried all the politicians. None of them have a good solution.
I’m ready to try someone different. Why? Because I don’t think it could be any worse than the current mess. And I feel double-crossed by the ones I voted for. None of them kept their campaign promises.
As ornery old Marge says, “Can’t hurt. Might help.”

Ian W
Reply to  Sun Spot
August 24, 2015 9:51 am

The Whips in the House of Commons collect and collate all the details of the peccadilloes of various members of parliament so they could be kept in line and obey the whips office. These peccadilloes often included various criminal behaviors. In the US this is called ‘The Chicago Way’ (A good description here ) But as you can tell with Cyril Smith and others it seems to be ‘the politicians way’ worldwide. Politicians love their jobs and money more than their countries.

Reply to  Ian W
August 24, 2015 11:51 pm


August 24, 2015 6:29 am

This is not even getting to the massive redirection of defense budgets and the VA to install overpriced solar and other waste in place of core mission readiness expenditures.

August 24, 2015 6:31 am

At this rate, I’m coming around to the concept of snap elections used in a lot of other countries.

Reply to  Resourceguy
August 24, 2015 3:50 pm

The problem is that the party in power determines when those snap elections are going to be called. They only call them when they believe they will benefit from them.

john q public
August 24, 2015 6:35 am

RICO Statutes may apply. Seems to me this is an organized criminal enterprise where certain people have colluded to manipulate stock prices and then profited by such. Under the RICO Statute, I believe you could file a Civil Suit in Federal Court. And it would be easy to sue for hundreds of billions because of the potential losses. The neat thing about civil suits is that the verdict is based on the preponderance of evidence. Any lawyers think this may be correct??

Reply to  john q public
August 24, 2015 3:52 pm

And who is charged with enforcing the RICO statutes?
The Dept of Justice, under first Holder, and now Lynch.
In other words, it doesn’t matter whether or not it is against the law, since nobody will ever be investigated, much less prosecuted.

August 24, 2015 7:18 am

I’m sure we all suspected it has been coordinated for years – press releases, statements, endorsements of new papers, friendly reviews of ‘new studies’ and the never-ending ad-hom attacks on people who merely raised a questioning eyebrow at the so-called ‘settled’ science demonstrates that.
Nice to see another curtain pulled back to expose yet more outright collusion though. This is one slice of new evidence that will leave them spitting with fury.

August 24, 2015 7:23 am

I have been contemplating a civil RICO (anti-racketeering) lawsuit against warmist fraudsters since 2013.
It’s time. Serious funders can contact me through
Regards, Allan MacRae
I have been considering this approach for several years and I think it is now time to proceed..
Civil RICO provides for TRIPLE DAMAGES. Global losses from the global warming scam are in the trillions, including hundreds of billions on the USA.
We would sue the sources of warmist funding and those who have significantly profited from the global warming scam..
The key to starting a civil RICO action is to raise several million dollars to fund the lawsuit, which will be protracted and expensive.
If serious funders are interested, please contact me through
Regards, Allan MacRae

Reply to  Allan MacRae
August 24, 2015 11:54 pm

Is that you Al playing both sides ? Or are you serious Allan ( Al/Allen)?

Reply to  Allan MacRae
August 25, 2015 1:38 pm

I’d love to come by and have coffee with you on one of my trips to Calgary from the wilderness. Might have an interesting discussion on how we get Ms Notley and Ms Phillips off the CARBON is bad and causing Climate Change along with their appointed Climate Change Commission digging up goodies for their junket to Paris. Seems they have been captured by BIG GREEN based in the speakers at Ms Phillips press conference. (On the other hand the make up if the panel is “interesting”.) (my email is available in the link)
I am sure you have seen the press conference and subsequent announcements. . In power but a few weeks and already co-opted…or perhaps they already were.
Although most of this appears to be political posturing to appease the provinces, states, and U.S. governments and environmentalists that are opposed to oil and gas pipelines from Alberta. Minister Phillips even inferred that in one of her press conferences announcing the make up if the Climate Change Committee
If anything shows that the whole discussion around Climate Change is politics rather than science, the current scene in Alberta is a great example.
(Sorry for the repetitive news releases but each one has a slight twist. )

Reply to  Wayne Delbeke
August 27, 2015 11:00 pm

Hi Wayne,
Global cooling will put an end to this CAGW nonsense by about 2020.
You can contact me through my website.
Best, Allan
Here is the link to my latest paper.
It is a retrospective of our debate on the Kyoto Protocol that was published in 2002.
Aug 26, 2015
UN IPCC has NO Credibility
by Allan MacRae
One’s predictive track record is perhaps the only objective measure of one’s competence. The IPCC has a negative predictive track record, because ALL of its scary projections have failed to materialize. The IPCC thus has NO credibility; actually it has NEGATIVE credibility. Probabilistically; based the IPCC’s negative predictive track record, one would more correct if one assumed the opposite of the IPCC’s scary projections.

In summary, all our predictions have proven correct in those venues that fully embraced the now-defunct Kyoto Accord, whereas none of the IPCC’s scary projections have materialized.
So what happens next? Will we see catastrophic humanmade global warming? No, our planet will cool.
I (we) predicted the commencement of global cooling by 2020-2030 in an article published in the Calgary Herald in 2002. That prediction is gaining credibility as solar activity [in current SC24] has crashed… It is still early in the prediction game, but SC25 is also projected to be very weak, so we will probably experience two consecutive very-weak Solar Cycles in SC24 and SC25… IF the Sun does indeed drive temperature, as I suspect, then successive governments in Britain and continental Europe have brewed the perfect storm. They have crippled their energy systems with excessive reliance on ineffective grid-connected wind power schemes. I suggest that global cooling probably WILL happen within the next decade or sooner, and Europe [and the world] will get colder, possibly much colder. I suggest that Winter deaths will increase in the Europe as cooling progresses. I suggest that Excess Winter Mortality rates will provide an estimate of this unfolding tragedy.
Timing is difficult to estimate, but I now expect global cooling to be evident by 2020 or sooner.

Reply to  Wayne Delbeke
August 29, 2015 5:20 am

HI moderator – can you please fix the link above?
.pdf is part of the link.
Thank you, Allan
[Reply: For some reason WordPress won’t add the .pdf. Here is the link. ~mod.]

Reply to  Wayne Delbeke
August 29, 2015 8:41 pm

Thank you mod.

August 24, 2015 8:37 am

Now were at last we are getting somewhere. It is only the Mac Rae attitude/actions which will actually force these fraudsters to withdraw

Gary Pearse
August 24, 2015 8:41 am

Chris Horner is no doubt a very good lawyer but I find his prosey style invites me to skim his pieces. Maybe some bullet points would help to organize the piece and shrink it down so the raisins in the bun are more prominent. The piece seemingly is hurrying toward a big finale but then comes to an end.
I appreciate his watchfulness and investigations but he should perhaps have a non-legal colleague read it for this sort of thing.

August 24, 2015 8:50 am

The colluder-in-chief has confidence in his over reach strategies. I’m not sure a “deep throat” at EPA, DoE, or anywhere else would make a difference at this point. If G. William Miller, the disaster at the Federal Reserve, did not permanently taint the White House thanks to Carter’s re-election over reach efforts then, how could Steyer be worried now? Political consequences and historical impact also depend on who you know and who beats the drum.

August 24, 2015 9:08 am

The alleged collusion appears to me to be much wider than stated in the article, namely, it might include.?
• NOAA who alter observable climate data at will and seem to issue biased reports to suit political agenda
• EPA who seems to creates impossible and over restrictive environment regulations to shut down coal plants and invents unsupportable “ carbon pollution”
• EIA who claims to be neutral but seems to create and issue biased levelized cost data favouring renewables
• Environmental consultants who do the bidding of the government in order to qualify for free research money
• Universities and science societies who fail to police and rein in the flawed global warming science in order to get governments grants
• Rich billionaires who fund only those politicians who support global warming initiatives
• Special interest groups and supplier industry that benefit from all the subsidies and free money
• Politicians who support carbon taxes and cap and trade taxes, not to fight climate change, but to raise more taxes which they use for other purposes

Reply to  herkimer
August 25, 2015 5:50 pm

You forgot to list all the worlds climate scientists, all the worlds Science Academies, all scientific professional societies, and NASA. They all must be in on the conspiracy, since they all subscribe to AGW.
Are you feeling left out?

Reply to  warrenlb
August 25, 2015 6:29 pm

Nah. They are all very, very well paid by their government sponsors for the answers they want to provide for their anonymous self-selected peer-reviewed star chamber funding.

James at 48
August 24, 2015 9:12 am

And when they encounter a governor who is less wild and crazy, the same cabal go and find your friendly neighborhood state legislative president pro tem and sponsor an economically disastrous voter proposition.

August 24, 2015 9:39 am

Collusion has been going on for four years. EPA and agenda folks meet, determine the goal, outline the lawsuit. The Agenda group (some non-profit with a Green name and heavy propaganda advertising expenses) then sues the EPA to force them to shut down or curtail someone.
The worst part is this move into governor offices and across state lines. For example, if California sues Duke Energy for electricity it ships to California from Texas, or otherwise strong arms Duke to raise costs across all of its states…I say Duke should pull its long extension cord and let California do without, thank you Brown.
Or if one state sues another because of something ludicrous like c02 traveling across the state’s border and the Obama tules and other states are colluding (along with media) with intent of shutting down a business or price fixing a market, now its getting into serious law breaking beyond RICO and collusion. And this is definitely what this article has demonstrated: we are already there.

August 24, 2015 9:45 am

here is another example of collusion between Obama admin and others. The “most transparent” and “most scientific” admin ever phhhht!

Doug Bunge
August 24, 2015 9:53 am

As a Kentuckian, I would like to thank you, very much, for sharing this.

August 24, 2015 10:08 am

Specifically, which states are involved in this? Mine?

Reply to  EOM
August 24, 2015 10:44 am

That’s basically a who’s who of administrations with experience in scheme management, dirty deals, and public awareness management.

Reply to  Resourceguy
August 24, 2015 2:21 pm

“public awareness management”. Gee, I wonder what that translates to in real language?

Reply to  PiperPaul
August 24, 2015 3:20 pm

“public awareness management”. Gee, I wonder what that translates to in real language?

Unaccountable, un-observeable, highly-paid but totally unprofitable (ie, useless and unproductive) government job. Specializing in gathering the next year’s higher budget. Forever.
Professional scare-monger, propagandist, “priest” in thrall to the CAGW religion.

August 24, 2015 10:44 am

Has anyone done much digging in Michigan? The voters there turned down a proposition for 25% renewables by 2025 by a 2/1 margin in Nov.2012. Now renewables are right back on the agenda in the legislature and by environmentalists pushing this.

Reply to  Barbara
August 24, 2015 2:24 pm

Model D Media, Detroit, Nov.4, 2014
‘Powering the Mitten: As coal plants shut down, where will our electricity come from?’
Union of Concerned Scientists and Michigan Environmental Council are mentioned in this article.

Reply to  Barbara
August 24, 2015 5:31 pm

E & E Legal
‘Private Interest & Public Office’, Report of Aug.24, 2015
P.49, Mentions the Gov.of Michigan along with some other Governors.

Reply to  Barbara
August 24, 2015 6:16 pm

Detroit Free Press, April 25, 2015
‘What’s next for Michigan’s energy transformation?’
Snyder’s target 24% renewables by 2025.

Reply to  Barbara
August 25, 2015 7:41 am

Private Interest & Public Affairs Report
P. 44, May 1, 2014, Tzeporah Berman
Corporate Knights, June 5, 2014, Summer Issue
Corporate Knights magazine Tom Steyer interview by Tzeporah Berman. and scroll down to the article.

Reply to  Barbara
August 25, 2015 7:47 pm

Tzeporah Berman . com
“She is the former co-director of Greenpeace International’s Global Climate and Energy program.”

Reply to  Barbara
August 25, 2015 5:13 pm

M LIVE, Nov.7, 2012
“Michigan’s Proposal 3: Voters reject 25 by 25 renewable energy mandate’
Measure lost by 63% to 37%.

August 24, 2015 10:47 am

And for special brownie points you get high speed rail funding, right Jerry?

August 24, 2015 11:16 am

This proves that the Democrats and Republicans really are different…
Democrats know how to run a political party.

Louis Hunt
Reply to  Stephen Rasey
August 24, 2015 11:53 pm

Democrats know how to run a political party like the Mafia. Fixed it for you.

August 24, 2015 11:26 am

Ok, so who is doing what about all this?

J. Keith Johnson
Reply to  Dan
August 24, 2015 12:51 pm

Don, a very good question. May I suggest that each of us who’s ever served in any branch of the military (enlisted or commissioned) review the following: “I, (state your name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same . . .”
My enlistment expired in January, 1988, but I have yet to find an expiration on the oath I took to defend the greatest document ever created by mere mortals. Together, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States represent something worth taking a stand for even at the price of “our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.”
It is up to us to do what we can to defend what is right and true.

J. Keith Johnson
Reply to  Dan
August 24, 2015 12:54 pm

Dan, I apologize for not getting your name correct in my first response. For some reason my bifocals just don’t seem to work as well as they should sometimes.

Jim Hodgen
August 24, 2015 12:09 pm

Independent prosecutor with a mandate for RICO indictments… starting at the White House.

Bruce Cobb
August 24, 2015 12:51 pm

Jail to the chief.

john q public
August 24, 2015 1:49 pm

Actually, any great law firm could do it and just pocket the trillions. I just want to go after the SOB’s and hurt them. I could care less about the money.

August 24, 2015 2:11 pm

Standard hybris: Their grasp(policy) exceeded their reach(science).

August 24, 2015 2:14 pm

For onlookers from other countries, there is a major difference between the two parties in the U.S. One party that thinks it owns government gets away with dirty deals or mistakes 9 out 10 times and has superb skills to manage the one discovered problem. The other party is lucky to get away with two out of 10 and has miserable skills at problem management. The party affiliation of the press and on up the line to editors and publishers tells the rest of the story.

Reply to  Resourceguy
August 24, 2015 3:07 pm

For further amazement see which party holds most power in states and in both houses of Congress. Next, for the bizzare spectacle, compare the strengths of the candidates for President from each party. We are quite surreal, here.

Reply to  kim
August 25, 2015 6:12 am

International observers will further note how even Americans can be out of date on the new methods of over reach to marginalize Congress and the courts, manipulate CBO cost estimates on major program initiatives, stack labor panels, and form fit science to policy goals of the advocacy controllers.

August 24, 2015 4:32 pm

Msm reporting this?

August 24, 2015 4:48 pm

Been done before. Merck was campaigning all governors to have Gardasil mandated by the state.
This stopped after Rick Perry tried too hard to steamroll it in Texas.

Curious George
Reply to  TheLastDemocrat
August 24, 2015 8:30 pm

Are you against vaccinations?

Reply to  Curious George
August 26, 2015 7:37 pm

No. I am against MANDATORY vaccines that are NOT socially, passively communicable.
Jacobson v Massachusetts 1905.
There is no end to other vaccines.

Tom Anderson
August 24, 2015 4:59 pm

You can’t help respecting (even while not admiring) the ruthlessly efficient organization of the elite warmists. Compared to them, we of the dissent are disorganized, unable to command a voice in the mainstream media, lacking in effective federal or state representation, and, no matter how unsettled the real science must be, divided on a common opposing scientific ground (e.g., physicists vs. meteorologists). What a mess! We are a rabble, my friends, associates and spokespeople — easy picking for the green machine to isolate and pick off at will. It doesn’t matter whether they are wrong and we are right. It’s the old advertising principle of there’s more bang in selling the sizzle than the steak. So where is the sizzle on our side? Where is the good grand alliance?
What seems most bizarre is that the sources that would ordinarily support the optimistic alternative view of our planet, the producers of cheap and abundant fossil fuel, have been cowed into silence by sanctimonious Greenpeace thugs and delusional environmental fanatics.
I apologize for belaboring the obvious. The question remains, where and when do we start a concerted response? Any answers?

Reply to  Tom Anderson
August 25, 2015 9:08 am

A starting point would be to create a coherent consistent science based explanation for the warming of the planet, and publish. So far, there is only a disparate collection of individuals with multiple contradictory claims. eg:
1) Earth is not warming, or
2) Earth is warming, but it’s natural. Or
3) Earth is warming, it’s not natural, but the warming is insignificantly small. Or
4) The warming is Man-caused and significant, but its better to adapt than to mitigate emissions.Or
5) The best of all: ‘I don’t care that all of science is against me — it’s all a big (worldwide) conspiracy.
So a consistent physics-based explanation, by Scientists, not amateurs, and endorsed by all on WUWT, would be an answer. If you can do it.

Reply to  warrenlb
August 25, 2015 9:54 am

You could start cutting down your list of hypotheses just by checking out WoodForTrees. (You might also look at the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change volumes. That is, if you’re really serious.)

Reply to  Tom Anderson
August 25, 2015 9:39 am

As usual, warrenlb doesn’t argue using facts and evidence (ie: using science), he argues using his appeal to authority logical fallacy. And his 1 – 5 points are not contradictory as he claims.
Let’s make up #6 that warrenlb conveniently omitted: there is probably some insignificant global warming due to human CO2 emissions. All the available evidence supports that view:comment image
The real world is confirming that, too. There hasn’t been any measurable global warming for almost 20 years. Look at the chart. How much global warming should we expect from the rise in CO2, from 300 ppm to 400 ppm? The answer is easy to see: any warming is too small to measure.
As anyone but warrenlb can see from the chart above, global warming resulting from even a doubling of CO2 from current levels (something that will probably never happen even if all fossil fuels are burned) is so minuscule that it should be completely disregarded. It is too tiny to matter.
But where’s the fun in that? The fun part is running around in circles and clucking that the sky is falling. Sorry to burst warrenlb’s bubble, but human CO2 emissions are simply not a problem.

Reply to  dbstealey
August 25, 2015 5:39 pm

So we now know that DB is in category #3. All he has to do now is convince everyone else on WUWT, including those in categories 1, 2,4, and 5 .. and then submit his paper for peer review and publish.

Stephen Heins
August 24, 2015 5:21 pm

Who is going to save the planet from those trying to save the planet?

August 24, 2015 5:51 pm

Crony meet capitalism.
Business marry government in unholy alliance.
What could go wrong?

August 24, 2015 6:37 pm

My suggestion to fight these a holes..inform the public ,with pictures ,of dead eagles ,

August 24, 2015 10:40 pm

ALEC has been doing exactly the same thing for the last 40 years. Why no complaints about them?

Eric Rasmusen
August 25, 2015 6:08 am

There’s nothing wrong with a president coordinating with governors and supporters to support a policy he wants. I was looking for the nefarious motive. It’s probably there, but that’s the story, not that someone is trying to push a policy.

August 25, 2015 6:53 am

Meanwhile, real issues with lives and property are at stake in agency operations.

Paul Courtney
August 25, 2015 9:58 am

A recent post by Tim Ball suggested that explaining the science isn’t enough, if skeptics are to overcome the great GW lie. This article shows how right he is, the other side fights dirty. Most skeptics will not go corrupt like this (or they’d be CliSci’s!). Guess we’re in for a long slog, pressing until public opinion turns enough to get gov’t and corp money to stop funding this ecofarce.

August 25, 2015 10:19 am

At the rate we are going, we will have no coal plants or rain forests at about the same point in time. This will be declared policy over reach success…..for a short time.

August 25, 2015 10:32 am

Reblogged this on The Arts Mechanical and commented:
Who will pay? The poor ratepayers in the states involved.

August 25, 2015 5:14 pm

In addition to the oath I reall signing a form stating that I didn’t belong to a subversive organization. Would not a group that advocates killing 95% of the human race qualify? Every Greenie should be subject to immediate dismissal from any govt job.

September 3, 2015 11:16 am

The research by Licht and his colleagues shows the earlier start of the monsoon occurred at a time when atmospheric CO2 was three to four times greater than it is now. The monsoon then weakened 34 million years ago when atmospheric CO2 then decreased by 50 percent and an ice age occurred.
Licht said the study is the first to show the rise of the monsoon is as much a result of global climate as it is a result of topography. The team’s paper is scheduled for early online publication in the journal Nature on Sept. 14.
“This finding has major consequences for the ongoing global warming,” he said. “It suggests increasing the atmospheric CO2 will increase the monsoonal precipitation significantly.”
University of Washington – De of Atmospheric Sciences – Dennis L. Hartmann – Click the pic to view at source

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights