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.
“As you know, an overwhelming majority of climate scientists are convinced about the potentially serious adverse effects…”
“Know”, “Majority”, “Convinced”, and “Potentially” are terms of partisan politics. How great it must be to work in a job where your employer pays you to lobby your employer to do your bidding and spend more money on what you want.
Yeah, sure, come arrest me for an opinion, guys. I probably won’t shoot your ass. Probably.
This is a sad development and an enlightening one at the same time. The alarmist side becomes so alarmed about the truth that nature continuously throws in their face that they want to resort to a tyrannical way of shutting up the true scientists and therefore deliver a fatal blow to all science. That is the sad part.
Getting in any lawsuit from any side will only muddle the subject more and will not lead to a definitive conclusion. Shear waste of money and time. In the end, we know that nature will show us the real truth and that is all we can hope for.
Inside every dark cloud there is a silver lining (I know that’s a really old saying), and there’s one here as well. Let us do a thought experiment. Let us imagine that Carly Fiorano cannot stop the Donald Trump ascendancy and he gets the Republican nomination (if you don’t like him don’t puke quite yet). And, let us imagine that Hillary Clinton and/or Befnie Sanders are doing poorly in the polls. (This should require very little imagination.)
Still with me? This is where it gets good. All these newfound, Constitution obliterating, extralegal, supreme powers, inclusive now of RICO, which the left has promoted for the acquisition of the executive (i.e. Barack) …
… are now conferred over to Trump!
You’ll note, when hands are behind back, left meets right.
Those old, antiquated, so 1700s, Founding Fathers of the USA envisioned the possibility of all of this stuff. James Madison wrote that one could never be assured of a good leader at the helm, which is why they never ever should be given too much power. These people are fools and they’d learn how foolish they are real fast if it looked like Trump began to coast towards the “helm.”
Tom J
If Trump got anywhere near close to winning Schmidt et all would be trying to pump money at his opposition as fast as they could.
Incidently, from France, the Trump – Fiorini ticket looks an exciting one but I dont think it will happen.
If you look at Trump’s political and economic statements over the last 20 years, it’s hard to tell him and Hillary apart.
If I have to vote for a socialist, I’ll probably go ahead and vote for Hillary. That way when the whole system collapses, the Democrats will get the blame.
You’ll only have to wait til year-end to see that collapse in progress.
It would seem to me that RICO would apply to the warmists more than the skeptics. Ironically their threat to use RICO to silence the skeptics would appear to be in itself racketeering.
Depends upon who the AG is.
Every judge in america is buyable§ IMHO
In the first Obama Care ruling, justice Roberts wrote both the majority and minority opinions.
There is no climate science or any other kind of science in this letter to Obama. Its argument leans totally on the alleged “authority” of the authors based on their membership in the climate research organization. The members of this group are responsible for spreading false information about climate and now they want to apply the RICO act on those who have discovered this fact in order to silence them. Whenever I can pin these guys down to specifics the details turn out to be so distorted that pseudo-science is the kindest word I can apply to it. This of course does not exclude inquiry into their out-and-out falsification of climate data to fool the public. Michael Crichton gave a presentation to the Congress a few years ago in which he severely criticized the constant revision of climate observations that he saw around him. These same “authorities” writing this letter are the ones wrongfully adjusting climate data. I will give you a specific example of how large this falsification of scientific data has gotten. The incident I speak of happened in the twentieth century but its effects are fully visible today. It involves the existence of a hiatus (period of no warming) in the eighties and nineties which has been covered up by means of over-writing its official record with a totally phony warming. In 2008 I was using the satellite database to do research for my book “What Warming?” when I discovered that there had been no warming at all from 1979 to 1997. Cross checking it with ground-based temperature records I found that instead of showing a horizontal temperature segment their record had been changed to show a rising stretch of temperature they called “late twentieth century warming.” That was a neat disappearing act indeed. Luckily they still don’t control the satellites or we would know know nothing about it. I also discovered that HadCRUT3 official temperature source was the origin of this phony warming. I even put a warning about it into the preface of my book when it came out but nothing happened. They just brazenly denied it and kept showing their non-existent warming. And that is still true today,eighteen years later. But this is not the end of it. Later I discovered that GISS and NCDC had been co-conspirators in this disappearing hiatus act. All three had their databases treated by the same computer which left its footprints in exactly similar locations in all three publicly available data sets. They are sharp spikes pointed up near ends of years. Two of them sit right on top of the super El Nino of 1998, easy to spot in comparison with satellite data. If you are looking for accuracy use satellite records, not these compromized data that are foisted upon the public. Now this kind of falsification of data with intent to fool the public really is something that should be investigated under the statute enabling RICO.
There is no science cuz…Obama.
To the right of your little finger is the Enter (or Return) key. Use it now and then and you’ll create paragraphs, which will make your screeds much easier to read. /Mr L
They sure are confirming Gandhi’s sequence :
“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”
Unfortunately, Gandhi, while tipping the hat to his other qualities, would have been marching with the watermelons.
…but in bare feet, without a mobile phone and the other trappings of today’s watermelons.
If Gandhi had tried the same tactics on the Nazi’s they would have simply hung him from the nearest lamp post.
Earlier this year i visited the Magna Carta 800 year exhibition in the precincts of Durham Cathedral. The exhibition itself , which dealt with the document(s) and its influence down the centuries was interesting in itself , but at the end of the exhibition there was a small presentation about the relevance to civil rights and liberties today , in England and around the world .
Each attendee was given a token and invited to vote the token in one of about 6 large perspex boxes labelled with various “freedoms” or “rights” . eg the right to work , civil equality , right to protest or the right to privacy .
The box with the most tokens , so full it was overflowing was “freedom of expression” more visitors voted for that than for all other “rights ” combined on the day i was there.
Lest you think this a singularly British preference, judging from the voices and appearance there were many visitors from US and Canada , France and Netherlands and many from China and Japan , so freedom to express your opinion seems to be a major universal desire , free to comment on matters of the moment without fear of incarceration in Guantanamo Bay.
Only in the hallowed halls of academia is this freedom at risk .
Amazing how in their first sentence they give it all away and don’t even know it….”As you know, an overwhelming majority of climate scientists are convinced about the potentially serious adverse effects..”
“Potentially” this maybe might be bad cause it is possible that our theory is right therefore you should punish them with certainty….we just can’t prove it.
Not too long ago in the grand scheme of things the consensus held that the sun went around the earth and that the planets all moved in circular orbits on crystal spheres. Galileo, Keppler and Copernicus proved the consensus wrong. In those days any dissent could have very serious consequences, including imprisonment and forefeiture of property and excommunication from the church.
Today we’ve changed all that. Questioning the status quo is in. No one would even consider prosecuting scientists for having different viewpoints. Provided they blindly support AGW!
Freedom of thought is the enemy. Conform in the name of Liberty. Believe or go to prison. It’s the only way to fight tyranny!
Sincerely,
Josef Stalin
Burning at the stake, too.
The aim of this letter is to attempt to silence people with different beliefs about public policy to their own. Even if you are a true believer in the worst scenarios, the difference between the United States current targets and doing nothing is a near zero. Emissions are global and so emissions reductions need to be global. Do the math and it is clear that the USA cutting emissions by 20-30%, with less than 5% of the global population, will have little impact. To get a sense of proportion I did an estimate of global emissions in 2020, dividing the world into eight country groups. I plotted emissions per capita against population, so the area of each block represents total emissions.
Then I have plotted three lines.
The highest is the average global emissions per capita in 1990 the time of the first IPCC assessment report.
The second in pale pink is the global emissions per capita in 2050 needed to limit global warming to 3 degrees according to the IPCC.
The second in bright pink is the global emissions per capita in 2050 needed to limit global warming to 2 degrees according to the IPCC. This is the target that countries will be supposedly signing up to later this year in Paris. That is to reduce emissions to the level of those of the average African today.
Details of my calculations are here.
Why should climate activists not be able to see the blindingly obvious policy issue? Stephen Lewandowsky’s who is infamous for smearing skeptics has inadvertently managed to provide a compelling reason from his two internet surveys. The first, the “Moon Hoax” survey, was discussed at WUWT (and on other blogs such as Climate Audit) extensively three years ago this month. Having been conducted solely on climate alarmist blogs, the survey was a good opinion poll of most dedicated climate activists. The second was a cross section of the US population. There were two common sets of questions in both surveys. The first was opinions on climate “science”. The second was what Lewandowsky calls “free-market ideation” – but are more accurately questions of “free-markets” against environmentalist or socialist/liberal positions. I plotted the results in both surveys. (Full analysis is here) In the USA politically most people are in the center of the political spectrum, giving a bell-shaped graph. On climate, with five options, respondents could be for (in green), against (red) or in the middle (amber). Lewandowsky confirms that belief in climate is associated with people with left-environmentalist opinions.
http://manicbeancounter.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/042114_1802_extremesoci5.jpg?w=600
The “Moon Hoax” survey gives a different perspective. The was no middle option in the question, so there is no amber. The responses are mostly deep green for strong belief in climate science. Politically the views are well to the left.
http://manicbeancounter.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/042114_1802_extremesoci6.jpg?w=600
The inescapable conclusion is that climate activists have quite a narrow range of opinions that are at odds with the vast majority. They cannot appreciate that other views and opinions could be possible, just as they cannot appreciate that the evidence for climate alarmism is considerably weaker than for the harmful effects of smoking.
I am curious to see what the per global capita emissions are for today, more than or less than in 1990. Do you happen to have a figure for now?
In 2013 the per capita emissions were about 5.25 t/CO2 per capita, as against 4.14 in 1990.
In that period global emissions grew 71% and population 35%.
Thank you. I was guessing that it is now higher than 25 years ago. So we now have to cut 50% to hit the 2050 goal. It’s not going to happen. Unfortunately, the only solution seems to be damaging cold in the face of this farce.
Do they need parental approval to write these letters?
Yep, I would take that RICO act, and use it on these racketeers:
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
If this is settled science, why are we (taxpayers) still paying these scientists’ salaries. Go home. Your job is done. Please ask your congressmen to stop paying for settled science.
Excellent. With this tool at hand all members of alarmist organizations can be prosecuted for their deeds, or at least extorted to cease and desist. At the same time the constitutional republic can be killed once and for all. Who could wish for more?
Dr. Edward Maibach holds a BA in social psychology from University of California at San Diego (1980), an MPH in health promotion from San Diego State University (1983), and a PhD in communication research from Stanford University (1990).
http://communication.gmu.edu/people/emaibach
Sung to the tune of “Me and My Uncle” (apologies to the Grateful Dead)
Me and my Uncle Kevin, went ridin’ down,
NCAR at Colorado, West Texas bound.
We stopped over in Santa Fe,
That day in the Prius, just about half way,
And you know it was the hottest part of the day.
I took all our followers, out to the mall,
Went to the barroom, ordered drinks for all.
Three days in a Prius, you know my body hurt,
It bein’ summer, I took off my shirt,
And I tried to wash off some of that dusty dirt.
Well, climate scientists, they’s all around,
With liquor and grant money, they loaded down.
So soon after grant approval, know it seemed a shame;
You know my Uncle Kevin, he starts a friendly game,
High-low jack and the winner take the same.
Uncle Kevin starts winnin’; climateers got sore.
One of them called him, and then two more,
Accused him of cheatin’; Oh no, it couldn’t be.
I know Uncle Kevin, he’s as honest as me,
And I’m as honest as a climate scientist can be.
One of them climateers, he starts to draw,
And I shot him down, Lord he never saw.
Well I grabbed a test tube, cracked him in the jaw,
Shot me another, oh damn he won’t grow old.
In the confusion, my Uncle Kevin grabbed the gold,
And we high-tailed it down to Mexico.
I love those climate scientists, I love their gold,
I loved Uncle Kevin, God rest his soul,
Taught me good, Lord, Taught me all I know
Taught me so well, I grabbed that gold
And I left his dead a… there by the side of the road.
pretty sure Jerry won’t mind
He’s probably giggling at us humans from up there.
I’m sure you’re right.
Good lyrics, by the way.
Eric Worrall points to the work of Stephen Lewandowsky and others in smearing climate skeptics with the false accusation of being accusation of being conspiracy theorists. This was based on the infamous “Moon Hoax” survey, which was discussed at length three years ago. A follow-up internet-based survey of the US population largely falsified this claim. Analysis of the data leads to the following conclusion:-
“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.”
The rusts, smuts, scabs, blights, mildews, nematodes, weeds and millions of other killers and reducers of crops have largely been brought under control in our country because of tractors and chemical inputs. Period.
These organic-only, local-only, sustainable activists are just grooming the victim. They are preparing the victim for the most malicious crime of attacking agriculture and good food.
They know very well that they are trying to break the staff of life. There are a hell of a lot of bugs and worms and microorganisms that will eat your food long before you do.
Hey, good news! The Arctic is ice-free, just as predicted!
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/scientists-predict-seasonal-ice-free-arctic-by-2015/article1350832/
Amazing duplicity on Kevin Trenberth’s part.
He is the one who deceived the public in a news conference back in October of 2004 regarding the link between hurricanes and global warming. Hurricane expert Chris Landsea had warned Trenberth prior to the news conference that there was little to no link, but Trenberth ignored the science and spouted his dogma. How long is the statute of limitations for RICO? The RICO act should apply to HIM!
Here are the Climategate emails regarding the event:
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=0890.txt&search=landsea
Chris Landsea did not pull any punches when he stated:
“I did try to caution both Dr. Trenberth and Dr. Linda Mearns before the media event (email included below) and provided a summary of the consensus within the hurricane research community. Dr. Mearns decided not to participate in the panel perhaps as a result of my email correspondence. I sincerely wish Dr. Trenberth had made the same decision. Dr. Trenberth wrote back to me that he hoped that this press conference would not “go out of control”. I would suggest that it was out of control the minute that he and his fellow panel members decided to forego the peer review scientific process and abuse science in pursuit of a political agenda. Sincerely, Chris Landsea”
Landsea resigned from the IPCC process shortly thereafter.
I think you people are all forgetting that the signatories of this letter, and the organizations they work for, all stand to lose serious money if the gravy train comes to a halt as a result of actions by skeptics.
Please, show some sympathy for the rich.
$1.5 million smackaroos for the lead grifter and his wife…
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/09/22/scientist-leading-effort-to-prosecute-climate-skeptics-under-rico-paid-himself-his-wife-1-5-million-from-govt-climate-grants-for-part-time-work/
David Roberts of the Gristmill website suggested something similar back in ’06:
“When we’ve finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we’re in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards—some sort of climate Nuremberg.”
Climate extremists are not only totally and tragically wrong about “the science”, but are vicious. And those Warmists not necessarily agreeing with their extreme tactics give their tacit approval by keeping quiet. That is tyranny in the making.
Yesterday evening I listened to Part 1 of the CBC’s “Ideas” program that explored how scientists are suppressed by political power.
Science Under Siege, Part I
Friday Sept 18, 2015
http://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas
“Are we living through an Anti-Scientific Revolution? Scientists around the world are increasingly restricted in what they can research, publish and say — constrained by belief and ideology from all sides.”
The two specific examples of the attack on science provided were vaccines in autism, and the denial that human activities cause climate change. Supposedly their respective bodies of evidence pretty much amount to the same thing.
What ensues on the program is an exquisite bit of science hypocrisy.
35:30 – Science writer Shawn Otto, author of “Fool Me Twice:”
“Four hundred years ago that somebody was the Catholic Church, who was the seat of world economic and political power. And today it could be argued that the seat of world economic and political power is the North American energy industry … So it is not really surprising when you consider that, for instance, Exxon-Mobile is the largest public traded company in the world … It’s no surprise that we see a lot of debate around the science suggesting that the planet is warming.
“So when vested interests are threatened by the creation of new knowledge they tend to mount very familiar propaganda and political campaigns against the scientists that are creating that knowledge.”
“A scientific statement is only powerful or only reliable to the extent that it is vulnerable to being falsified. That we can disprove it. If it cannot be phrased in a way that it is vulnerable to disproof, it really isn’t science; it’s more an assertion of faith.”
“Science is always political … anti-authoritarian.”
” Those who deny freedom to others , deserve it not for themselves, and under a just God, cannot long retain it (Abraham Lincoln)
The first amendment was necessary because people like Sheldon Whitehouse exist. Whitehouse needs to resign in shame because he is doing this: http://www.whitehouse.senate.gov/news/release/senators-ask-us-chamber-of-commerce-board-member-companies-about-the-chambers-climate-denial-efforts
This is nothing short of intimidation in a nation that abhors (or used to) a government of confrontation. People need to remember and never forget that the constitution does not grant freedoms, it defines limits of government. We already had the right to freedom of speech. The first amendment specifically prohibits government from the exact thing Whitehouse is doing. The first amendment reads:
Where the hell is liberal outrage?
I’m a liberal and I am outraged, but as an attorney, let me say you don’t know the first damn thing about the Constitution if you think it doesn’t guarantee individual freedoms.
The idea the there is wrongdoing because some people have a different opinion than you do, as the basis for a RICO case, is a real stretch.
Well, you’re both right. The freedoms are held (in the Declaration) to be endowed by Providence. The Bill of Rights to the Constitution is intended to restrain the Federal government from abridging those natural rights. So yes, in one sense the Constitution can be said to “guarantee” the freedoms, by restricting the Federal government.
But to DP’s point: Whitehouse and these ersatz ‘scientists’ are proposing nothing less than to prosecute people for speaking their minds on matters of science and public policy. That’s a violation of the First Amendment.
/Mr Lynn