Climate Alarmists demand Obama use the RICO act to Silence Critics

rico

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

h/t JoNova and James Delingpole – A group of climate scientists, including Professor Kevin Trenberth, have demanded President Obama abuse the RICO act, to silence criticism of their theories.

The letter;

Dear President Obama, Attorney General Lynch, and OSTP Director Holdren,

As you know, an overwhelming majority of climate scientists are convinced about the potentially serious adverse effects of human-induced climate change on human health, agriculture, and biodiversity. We applaud your efforts to regulate emissions and the other steps you are taking. Nonetheless, as climate scientists we are exceedingly concerned that America’s response to climate change – indeed, the world’s response to climate change – is insufficient. The risks posed by climate change, including increasing extreme weather events, rising sea levels, and increasing ocean acidity – and potential strategies for addressing them – are detailed in the Third National Climate Assessment (2014), Climate Change Impacts in the United States. The stability of the Earth’s climate over the past ten thousand years contributed to the growth of agriculture and therefore, a thriving human civilization. We are now at high risk of seriously destabilizing the Earth’s climate and irreparably harming people around the world, especially the world’s poorest people.

We appreciate that you are making aggressive and imaginative use of the limited tools available to you in the face of a recalcitrant Congress. One additional tool – recently proposed by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse – is a RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) investigation of corporations and other organizations that have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, as a means to forestall America’s response to climate change. The actions of these organizations have been extensively documented in peer reviewed academic research (Brulle, 2013) and in recent books including: Doubt is their Product (Michaels, 2008), Climate Cover-Up (Hoggan & Littlemore, 2009), Merchants of Doubt (Oreskes & Conway, 2010), The Climate War (Pooley, 2010), and in The Climate Deception Dossiers (Union of Concerned Scientists, 2015). We strongly endorse Senator Whitehouse’s call for a RICO investigation.

The methods of these organizations are quite similar to those used earlier by the tobacco industry. A RICO investigation (1999 to 2006) played an important role in stopping the tobacco industry from continuing to deceive the American people about the dangers of smoking. If corporations in the fossil fuel industry and their supporters are guilty of the misdeeds that have been documented in books and journal articles, it is imperative that these misdeeds be stopped as soon as possible so that America and the world can get on with the critically important business of finding effective ways to restabilize the Earth’s climate, before even more lasting damage is done.

Sincerely,

Jagadish Shukla, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA

Edward Maibach, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA

Paul Dirmeyer, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA

Barry Klinger, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA

Paul Schopf, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA

David Straus, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA

Edward Sarachik, University of Washington, Seattle, WA

Michael Wallace, University of Washington, Seattle, WA

Alan Robock, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ

Eugenia Kalnay, University of Maryland, College Park, MD

William Lau, University of Maryland, College Park, MD

Kevin Trenberth, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO

T.N. Krishnamurti, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL

Vasu Misra, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL

Ben Kirtman, University of Miami, Miami, FL

Robert Dickinson, University of Texas, Austin, TX

Michela Biasutti, Earth Institute, Columbia University, New York, NY

Mark Cane, Columbia University, New York, NY

Lisa Goddard, Earth Institute, Columbia University, New York, NY

Alan Betts, Atmospheric Research, Pittsford, VT

It never fails to amaze me how climate alarmists regularly accuse skeptics of being unhinged conspiracy theorists, while at the same time the alarmists themselves regularly advance lunatic conspiracy theories, to “explain” why a lot of people refuse to accept their doomsday predictions on faith, despite the complete and utter failure of alarmist climate models to demonstrate predictive skill.

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
388 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
September 19, 2015 7:51 am

it’s a frivolous travesty.

September 19, 2015 7:55 am

If one political party gives in to this idea the other political party will take up the cudgel too.
Greenpeace have broken laws. They’ve broken laws to raise publicity and funds.
Greenpeace board remembers could easily be caught in a RICO case, if this genie let out of the bottle.
No-one is foolish enough to take these anti-debate campaigners seriously.

Jim G1
September 19, 2015 7:55 am

Skeptical scientists should litigate using the RICO act showing the conspiracy to silence them in violation of the US constitution and promoting a theory that observations have falsified.

urederra
September 19, 2015 7:56 am

The silence is settled

KenB
September 19, 2015 8:00 am

Don’t want to play politics in some one else’s pond, but any attempt to use RICO would only unleash the Impeach Obama dogs of war!

G. Karst
September 19, 2015 8:01 am

I am all for warmist RICO actions. It would be the trial of the century. Something would break and an important social realization would be achieved. Bring it on soonest. GK

commieBob
Reply to  G. Karst
September 19, 2015 12:32 pm

I am all for warmist RICO actions. It would be the trial of the century.

You mean like the Scopes Monkey Trial? Be careful what you wish for. wiki

The JacK Russell Terrorist
September 19, 2015 8:03 am

I guess with the Commie Pope in power. Will the Spanish Inquisition make a return? So true about your comment TomRude about the CBC. 10 million per month for a network no one hardly watches and I rarely hear it on in stores and homes I visit.

climanrecon
September 19, 2015 8:04 am

Let them play these games, they serve to expose the weakness of the so-called settled science. In the event of an investigation there would be thousands of individuals saying “I am Spartacus”, it would probably galvanise rather than suppress the sceptic movement.

Fin
September 19, 2015 8:04 am

What Trenberth can’t do due to lack of talent, IQ and integrity, he thinks can be compensated by fascist thuggery perpetrated by dogs like himself. What a dreadful piece of anti-science and morally bankrupt bastardry.

September 19, 2015 8:04 am

To avoid prosecution, I guess I’ll have to go along with the AGW fairy-tale. But that doesn’t mean I can’t warn folks about the coming Ice Age, right?

September 19, 2015 8:10 am

Wow, 26 scientists from 9 US academic establishments! Doesn’t sound to me like an “overwhelming majority”. The USA must be a much smaller place than I recall.

Severian
September 19, 2015 8:14 am

This entire CAGW thing reminds me of an anonymous saying I’ve heard: “If you show an honest man that he’s wrong, he either stops being wrong or stops being honest.”
Here, they not only stop being honest, if they ever were in the first place, but turn aggressively totalitarian and attempt to punish those who prove them wrong. Which is why I think every society and culture/civilization in history never survives prosperity, they seem to commit suicide and we see the handwriting on the wall here, our Western Civilization is in the process of killing itself over trivia.

whiten
Reply to  Severian
September 19, 2015 11:34 am

Severian
September 19, 2015 at 8:14 am
hi Severian.
Please allow me to make a small adjustment to your last part of your comment…apologies too. Simply trying to show my point which is very similar, for not saying the same as yours. thanks in advance. 🙂
“Which is why I think every society, people, nation, kingdom or empire, ever, and their “civilized” culture in history never survives when it makes a stand against the prosperity , the growth and evolution of the Civilization itself, they seem to commit suicide and we see the handwriting on the wall here, our Western societies and their structures are in the process of self harming and social self destruction over trivia and the insanity of stubbornly challenging the Civilization and its order in its basic essence…..
sorry if this will seem not that proper to you….
cheers

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  whiten
September 20, 2015 2:28 pm

Severian’s reads better. Yours is a lot wordier, and to be honest, I can’t see exactly what the point of the difference is. Could you simplify please? perhaps in your own words. cheers.

Scarface
September 19, 2015 8:25 am

Time to sue the Global Warming cultists under the False Claims Act.
A few things need to be established:
– The defendant has actual knowledge of the false claim
– The defendant deliberately ignored the truth
– Disregard was reckless
Source: http://study.com/academy/lesson/deterring-business-crime-rico-false-claims-act-sarbanes-oxley-act.html
Shouldn’t be a problem imho.

emsnews
Reply to  Scarface
September 19, 2015 8:42 am

Yes, eventually this will all be in the courts because lying and altering data is a crime.

commieBob
Reply to  Scarface
September 19, 2015 3:38 pm

We have a case before the courts now. Michael Mann has sued Mark Steyn

for defamation for calling his ever more flaccid stick “fraudulent”. link

Mann could just drop his suit before he has to produce discovery or go on the stand and he will still have inflicted major pain on Steyn. To prevent that, and to make sure Mann has to produce evidence in discovery and to make sure Mann has to take the stand, Steyn has countersued Mann. link
To help Steyn with his legal fees you can buy his new book A Disgrace to the Profession. The book is doing well:

Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #540 in Books

It’s doing much better than the latest books of Michael Mann and Naomi Klein. 🙂

herkimer
September 19, 2015 8:28 am

Is it only in climate science that such nonsense is going on ? .I cannot think of any other scientific or professional field where one party asks for criminal investigation and jail time of another party just because the latter party points out major errors of the first party’s views or disagrees with their views. Imagine one group of doctors asking for criminal investigation and racketeering charges of another group of doctors over the medical views of another group of doctors with whom they disagree. Racketeering charges just because you have a different point of view in science . How absolutely idiotic. One would never expect this kind o nonsense in the country which is supposed to be the leader of the free world and freedom of expression. The saddest part in all this is that the entire scientific community sits in silence and allows this to happen without any objection . Loss of their freedom could be next if they remain silent.

Reply to  herkimer
September 19, 2015 4:48 pm

It’s not about science any more. Actually, it never was, not since people like Maurice Strong and Margaret Mead decided to push the hypothesis of ‘Global Warming’ as the prod to world socialism. And that was back in the ’70s. The IPCC was founded to give ‘scientific’ cover to this political movement.
/Mr Lynn

markl
Reply to  L. E. Joiner
September 19, 2015 7:04 pm

L. E. Joiner commented: “….It’s not about science any more. Actually, it never was, not since people like Maurice Strong and Margaret Mead decided to push the hypothesis of ‘Global Warming’ as the prod to world socialism. And that was back in the ’70s. The IPCC was founded to give ‘scientific’ cover to this political movement.
+1

September 19, 2015 8:36 am

Do not send your children to any of the Universities associated with the authors. The AGW Kool-aid is tainted…although sweet, it will rot the brain

Clay Marley
Reply to  rocdoctom
September 19, 2015 9:28 am

Yes, I was very disappointed to see my alma mater in the list, but not too surprised. I haven’t sent them any money for years because of their CAGW shenanigans.

Patrick
September 19, 2015 8:44 am

How many wars, in modern times, have started this way?

whiten
Reply to  Patrick
September 19, 2015 11:41 am

Patrick
September 19, 2015 at 8:44 am
All of the most blooded ones?!!
Especially the last world war stands out as the best candidate!
cheers

September 19, 2015 8:44 am

The list of signatories seems rather short – I’m surprised that Michael Mann is not among them, for example. Maybe his appetite for getting enmeshed in more legal troubles is satiated for now.

September 19, 2015 8:45 am

Overlooked is the fact that IPCC fits perfectly the legal definition of a “Racket.”
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2015/09/18/anti-racketeering-initiative/

Scarface
Reply to  Ron Clutz
September 19, 2015 8:58 am

Exactly so. From Wikipedia:
“A racket is a service that is fraudulently offered to solve a problem, such as for a problem that does not actually exist, that will not be put into effect, or that would not otherwise exist if the racket did not exist. Conducting a racket is racketeering.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racket_(crime)
RICO would do the job on warmists too. We live in interesting times.

Reply to  Scarface
September 19, 2015 11:28 am

And even worse, the protection racket distracts energy and money from actions to adapt and prepare for real environmental threats.
Witness California, after decades of underinvesting in water conservation now find themselves facing a potential long drought. Abdicating responsibility, their governor claims it is the fault of global warming, and they will fight it with an emissions trading scheme.
Send in the Clowns. Oh wait, they are in charge.

Dav09
Reply to  Scarface
September 19, 2015 8:14 pm

“A racket is a service that is fraudulently offered to solve a problem, such as for a problem that does not actually exist, that will not be put into effect, or that would not otherwise exist if the racket did not exist.”
One would have to be a true doubleplusgood doublethinking statist to exclude more than a low single digit percentage of what all governments do from that definition.

markl
September 19, 2015 8:48 am

This will backfire.

Jimbo
Reply to  markl
September 19, 2015 2:24 pm

It has to backfire because evidence is required by courts.

Reply to  Jimbo
September 20, 2015 8:28 pm

You’ve obviously missed the implications of the Roberts doctrine: the government is no longer required to make and support a winning argument to prevail; it is enough that the court find the goverment could have made a winning argument. So while RICO might not work, the government could enact a 100% tax on income made from climate denial activites. Such income need not be real to be taxable; it could be imputed income from the massive oil company denial funding that 97% of climate scientists are certain their computer models demonstrate might be real.
The US government has the unlimited power to tax income, so as long as they call a new law a “tax”, or if Justice Roberts determines they could have called it a tax, then the law passes constitutional muster.
So if you publish a piece denialist misinformation, the IRS will demand that you report and pay taxes on the value (modeled, of course) your lies have to the energy companies in their quest to achieve obscene profits while destroying the planet and killing all the polar bears. I’d say Anthony could be socked for $100K or so in imputed income for each article. Who needs RICO when you have the US tax code?
/sarc (I hope)
PS: it is never wise to assume there is a limit to the silliness to which tax authorities will go. One time my company attended a computer conference in Canada, and had to pay import duty on the estimated $100 worth of product brochures we brought to give out (free!) to other attendees.

jclarke341
September 19, 2015 8:55 am

This letter will be featured in history books in the chapter entitled ‘The Corruption of Science in the 21st Century and the Abandonment of the Scientific Method’.

Reply to  jclarke341
September 19, 2015 9:27 am

The letter to Obama et al uses the phrase
“that have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change”
to describe the people that they want prosecuted under the RICO statute. It seems to me that it is the Warmists that are the ones guilty of this charge.

MangoChutney
September 19, 2015 9:04 am

CliMcCarthyism?

Kon Dealer
September 19, 2015 9:06 am

A list of fraudsters which should be recorded for use in future trials.

601nan
September 19, 2015 9:08 am

In the US Holdren is the CEO and Obama is the COB of the AGW Industries (Solyndra et al.) and Research Division (NSF et al.) so eve ry endorser name on the letter is a shill and a pimp rewarded by Holdren and his NSF to do Obama bidding.
Funny for an organized crime group within the executive government to try and use the courts of the judiciary government against (class action) private citizens to stymie public debate and discussion (first amendment to the constitution).

Phlogiston
September 19, 2015 9:12 am

Munich spring 2.0, the black flag of fascism rises in the USA. Truth and honesty always the first victims. CAGW is the most colossal lie in human history.
Intensifying extreme weather events? Not happening.
Sea level rise acceleration? Not happening.
Ocean acidification? Not happening.
Interesting that they forgot to mention global warming.

rogerknights
September 19, 2015 9:22 am

There’s a thread on this at Climate, etc. too.
The letter states:

One additional tool – recently proposed by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse – is a RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) investigation of corporations and other organizations that have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, as a means to forestall America’s response to climate change.

“Knowingly deceived” MAY apply to Exxon, to some extent, based on the New Yorker story linked to above. Or it may not. It’s hard to see how other oil (and coal?) companies were wittingly deceptive. Anyway, it is and was impossible to be as knowing about the degree of future warming and its impact as it was about the association of smoking with disease. The linkage rests on lots of iffy inferences and dodgy data.

The actions of these organizations have been extensively documented in peer reviewed academic research (Brulle, 2013) and in recent books including: Doubt is their Product (Michaels, 2008), Climate Cover-Up (Hoggan & Littlemore, 2009), Merchants of Doubt (Oreskes & Conway, 2010), The Climate War (Pooley, 2010), and in The Climate Deception Dossiers (Union of Concerned Scientists, 2015). We strongly endorse Senator Whitehouse’s call for a RICO investigation.

How have the American people been targeted by these deceptions? Have these companies pooh-poohed alarmism the way the tobacco companies did? No. It’s been over 15 (?) years since Mobil ran its last debunking ad. Since then 90% of their money has gone to mainstream climatology, and their statements have mostly paid homage to the consensus.

The methods of these organizations are quite similar to those used earlier by the tobacco industry. A RICO investigation (1999 to 2006) played an important role in stopping the tobacco industry from continuing to deceive the American people about the dangers of smoking. If corporations in the fossil fuel industry and their supporters are guilty of the misdeeds that have been documented in books and journal articles, it is imperative that these misdeeds be stopped ….

Knowing deception hasn’t been documented, only inferred; what’s mostly been documented is some spending going to think tanks that employ skeptical climatologists, or that conduct educational activities, like Heartland. And, of the money they donate to ^organizations that deny global warming^, as alarmists deceptively put it, 90% goes to non-climatology matters.
An investigation would be OK with me. It won’t find deception, just disagreement. Alarmists are so sure they’re right, and have such one-track minds, and such faith in mass opinion, that they can’t imagine honest disagreement. That extreme prejudice and arrogance is what will come out of an investigation.
Alarmists should volunteer to have all their internal documents subject to discovery in a RICO-type investigation, to demonstrate that they have clean hands. If they don’t volunteer, they should be challenged to do so.

rogerknights
Reply to  rogerknights
September 19, 2015 5:21 pm

Another arrow in the alarmists’ quiver is that the PR firm for a coal company suggested that the proper strategy for delaying or stopping legislation is inculcating doubt. This sounds nefarious, because it’s what criminal defense lawyers do to get a guilty client off.
But it isn’t necessarily nefarious. It may simply be a recognition that an effort to prove the alarmists wrong in the public forum by dissecting their case fully be unsuccessful (being too complicated, too long, and too boring), and so a better strategy would be to hammer at a few salient flaws and uncertainties in the alarmists’ case, and to make an issue of the costs. That’s simply realpolitik.