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.
I see the entire faculty of George Mason U was frog marched in to sign or else – almost a third of the signatories. Most notable is that there is only one guy anyone can recognize – Kevin Trenberth. He must have been at a seminar at George Mason. Does he realize he was used as a poster boy for the signing which otherwise would have no impact. During the depth of the dreaded pause he maintained a certain integrity in his famous remark about it being a travesty that they couldn’t explain the pause. Since, he appears to have come down a lot. I suppose having agonized out loud about the “pause” he felt the need to explain it away and away went integrity. Presumably, he’s relieved that his colleagues have taken a no nonsense approach and abolished the damned thing. But what is he doing in the climate of these nobodies.
I wonder if Trenberth knew what he was signing during that poster session signature grab? Was the final form of the letter in front of him? I would lay a 50/50 chance that he removes his name from that letter. If he doesn’t, I put him on the bottom of the pile and move Mikey up one slot.
Does Trenberth not have a “PhD” after his name? Is it too much to expect people with 10 or more years of post-graduate education to read a non-technical letter and understand the implications of asking the chief executive officer of the United States to embark on a new policy direction?
Was Einstein unaware of the likely results of signing Leó Szilárd’s letter to President Roosevelt?
Ph.D.’s are no promise of wisdom. Far from it. I have known a few and some do idiotic things and are somewhat without a reasoning mind.
Delusional on so many levels !
1) they really think skeptics are funded by big oil ???? Skeptics are generally self funded
2) they think their case is so iron clad that it could stand up to scrutiny in court? I guess they don’t look at observed data, just model outputs. Good luck with that
3)this all sounds good until skeptics turn the table on them & pursue Big Green with the RICO act. Our case would be far stronger. My suggestion to the signers of that letter – dont pick a fight you can’t win & you can’t finish
I find this article oddly reassuring as it indicates the barely concealed panic increasingly apparent among warmists in general and warmist ” scientists ” in particular. Interestingly enough the UK Met Office recent commentary on climate in the short to medium term indicates that some influential supporters of the orthodoxy are now preparing a defence for what they consider to be an increasingly likely and imminent period of cooling. UK Met concede that the pause has happened but that strong warming will reassert itself in the near future. But the warming will ” paradoxically ” lead to cooling of the northern half of the northern hemisphere with “some” recovery of Arctic ice (Daily Telegraph Sept. 14 2015).
It would be hilarious for politicians – particularly the Obama administration – to prosecute anyone for having “knowingly deceived the American people.”
I plan to email every single one of those numbskulls.
I always love the attempted parallels to big tobacco…especially since Michael Mann lawyered-up with an attorney who successfully defended big tobacco (R.J. Reynolds) in a lawsuit.
What were these people thinking when they signed this letter? Maybe this:
“We keep telling everyone there’s a 97% consensus, but they would rather believe their lying eyes. So we need to politicize science. Let’s make climate science a partisan issue by appealing to the current party in power to force everyone to accept our pet theories. What could go wrong?”
Actually I fully support the concept of targeting people/corporations who deliberately mislead, especially if it is for profit. That goes for no matter who it is or what they are saying. How can anyone argue with that?
The time has arrived, Arm yourself.
We are already armed in the UK.
Hmmm, no mention of Global Warming, which is supposedly what this is all about. One should always remind these charlatans when they talk of “climate change” they are actually talking of global warming.
But read the comments on warmist blogs, They all refer to warming, not climate change.
Always remember, when the Democrats/Leftists/Marxists point the finger and accuse their opposition, they do it to protect themselves from the same charge. The difference is, the charge would be valid against them, but obviously invalid against us. The objective of making the charge against someone else is if the issue ever comes up, the public will be tired of hearing about it, and it won’t have traction even if it is real.
Don’t bother defending yourself against such phony charges by trying to prove you are innocent. Start finding out how the Democrat socialist-fascists are guilty in reality of exactly what they are accusing you of doing. There won’t be any evidence they can find, but if you waste your time defending yourself against nothing, you’ll have no opportunity to get it to stick on them.
In this case, clearly the scientific literature is littered with falsehoods designed to perpetuate a corrupt grant system. Of course, that quid pro quo gaming was hinted at in the CRU email releases.
I believe in freedom and liberty for all except for people who don’t think or feel the way I do about everything. They must go away. They have coodies.
The Ego of Trenberth is amazing. On his NCAR bio, it states:
“Shared Nobel Peace Prize that went to the IPCC 2007″
As Anthony reported in a post on June 17:
In a statement of 29 October 2012 the IPCC clarified that the “prize was awarded to the IPCC as an organisation, and not to any individual involved with the IPCC. Thus it is incorrect to refer to any IPCC official, or scientist who worked on IPCC reports, as a Nobel laureate or Nobel Prize winner. It would be correct to describe a scientist who was involved with AR4 or earlier IPCC reports in this way: ‘X contributed to the reports of the IPCC, which was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007.’”
So Mr. Trenberth, please correct the lie in your NCAR bio.
Telling the truth seems to be a problem with this guy. He just can’t let the Nobel prize go.
But it’s a Nobel lie.
Is this a MANN thing?
Hate to say, but I hope this happens.
Would be very interesting to see how this played out in court.
Can you counter-sue under RICO?
Its civil in nature so… Yes you can counter sue…
This letter from the 20 disgruntled climate scientists to President Obama illustrates the immaturity and stubbornness of these 20 climate scientists despite their age and experience in science. Appealing to the boss when you are unable to convince the public, the politicians or your fellow dissenting scientists of your views, is a sign of a group who are used dictating their views regardless of its correctness or merits . Left to their own devices they try to pull scientific rank and demand obedience and even requesting criminal action on anyone who disagrees with them. Instead of using the dissenters in a positive and participatory way to flush out the errors and weakness of their science, they resort to underhanded ways in an attempt to silence any dissent.This group would do well to read the book called SWAY by Ori and Rom Brafman about the irresistible pull of irrational behaviour . There is an excellent section on dissenting justice and how the Supreme court uses dissent wisely even to the point of including the dissenting opinion and report as well as the opinion of the majority. This approach is a well established technique in management and group interaction and the use of idea initiators, blockers and dissenters can greatly facilitate better and quicker decision making on complex issues
Using the same logic, RICO should be used against the President considering what he has promised and what has actually happened. Especially consider the ACA which is not the health care that the President promised. He made numerous promises about health care that has not been kept. In particular, all members of the President’s party in congress could be named as co conspirators.
Will they send in a non bias attorney general in to investigate like in thise two last public shakedown investigations?
They say that mostly it is the skiers themselves who cause the avalanche in which they get caught.
This is just what we sceptics need – because it will bring the house of cards tumbling down around their ears.
Despite some of the mendacious characters in this list, I doubt they dreamed this up on their own. I don’t think even Sheldon Whitehouse’s grandstanding would have been sufficient to inspire it. No, this has the trademark of proactive pursuit of the administrative agenda. It had to be inspired by higher levels, if not directly from the White House, then indirectly through its promoters of doom like the National Science Foundation and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Let’s see, who are the signers funded by?
I don’t know what disturbs me most: That Trenberth’s Twenty don’t believe this twaddle they have written, or that they do.
First the alarmists in their letter to Obama start with a non statement that the overwhelming majority of climatologists believe in “the potentially serious side effects” of human induced climate change. But that’s not the same as saying that they agree THERE IS human induced climate change ongoing. This is a cleverly worded misrepresentation which can never justify violating someone’s right to free speech under the Constitution.
Might this be a great chance for Key skeptics to answer press inquiries about this RICO call with succinct replies of the falsity of CAGW ? . I.E. …20 years with no warming, no increase in storms, arctic and Antarctic ice doing fine, etc. Trillions which could help the poor would be wasted chasing immeasurable reductions in temperature. . 5 top bullet points
Johngar,
Yes, I think that’s right. The situation is similar to Mann’s lawsuit against Steyn: now Mann has a tiger by the tail. He can’t do anything, and he’s afraid to let go. And Dr. Tim Ball is laughing at Mann’s reluctance to turn over information.
We’re not at the point yet where someone, or some group can arbitrarily be delared
witchesguilty. There would have to be a trial, no?Let’s have that trial! Complete with cross-examination of everyone who signed that letter: How much taxpayer loot have they received? How much would be cut off if they lost the trial? Why did Trenberth demand that the Scientific Method must be turned on its head, putting the onus of proof on skeptics, instead of where it properly belongs: on those promoting the MMGW conjecture?
And what about counter-suits? If they pulled the trigger on this, there would be plenty of counter-suits. At that point, opinions would be secondary to verifiable facts, like the fact that global warming stopped many years ago. And where is the global damage, or global harm, from more CO2? Doesn’t “no harm” mean “harmless”?
Mark Steyn has shown that standing up to a bully makes the bully suddenly wish he hadn’t taken any action.
dbstealey, I agree 110%. never merely defend against these scum, attack back! At the core they’re gutless.
I think it’s time skeptics put alarmist liars and rent seekers on notice. When the whole edifice comes tumbling down – as it must – we and they all know it – but they lie about it – those who manipulated science for personal gain, induced others to do so, or knowingly accepted funding or remuneration (including profits in carbon trading, payments for making, erecting, or leasing land for, wind turbines and bird-torturing solar concentrators) for destructive acts will be charged with high crimes against humanity, wildlife and the planet. Corruption of science should be treason against the human race, as we rely on good science for our very existence. When collaborators’ involvement falls short of knowing conspiracy, nevertheless all monies made from participating in the scam will be pursued and repaid, even pursued down through the generations if necessary. But humanity will be repaid for this hoax.
Put them on notice. Get the wording right, make sure genuine innocents are not criminally charged (but their profits should still be recovered on the same principle as accepting stolen goods). Then build momentum behind getting the signatures.
Who here has the time and money to mount such an attack? It would take an organization, maybe a foundation. I’d contribute; I’d even work for them. But how to herd the skeptical cats that frequent blogs like this?
/Mr Lynn
I am talking about when the whole house of cards falls down and the “regime” is overthrown.
People who are commenting that this is an act of desperation are correct, to which I would add, it is also an act of ignorance. Any lawyer who read that, including those who support the writers’ agenda such as Obama and Lynch, would smile knowingly if not laugh out loud while finding an appropriate place for it in the round file.
Look at it this way, given that their Prez had weighed in on the Brown shooting, Justice looked at every angle they could think of to prosecute Wilson for civil rights violations. But they declined to do so, even though they had a violent death and a corpus delicti and everything.
Because, you see, posturing for the public is one thing. But for a lawyer, the last thing on God’s green earth you want to have happen is to be laughed out of the courtroom by a judge.
I’m all for RICO. 30 years to life for Trenberth. Confiscation comes to mind. The same may be for the others.
“We appreciate that you are making aggressive and imaginative use of the limited tools available to you ”
Says it all really.