Climate activists want us prosecuted under RICO

Losing the climate science battle, climate activists want government to silence skeptics

Guest essay by Paul Driessen

They haven’t employed the thumb screws, rack or auto-da-fe that churches and states once used to interrogate, silence and eliminate heretics and witches. However, global warming alarmists are well practiced in the modern equivalents, to protect their $1.5-trillion Climate Crisis Industry.

They see only what they want to see, and publicize only what they want us to see. They refuse to debate anyone who questions the nature, severity or reality of “manmade climate change dangers” that are the foundation of their demands that we slash fossil fuel use, lower our living standards, and accept global government planning of economies and massive climate “adaptation and reparation” payments.

They collude to hide and manipulate data, and employ computer models that that make the Little Ice Age disappear and global temperatures climb rapidly after 1950. They pressure editors to keep contrarian papers out of scientific journals, and present false claims that 97% of scientists agree that humans are causing dangerous climate change. They take billions from government agencies whose policies and regulations they promote. They blindly ignore the serious adverse effects that their policies have on blue-collar families and the world’s poor. Imbued with religious zeal, now they’re really ramping it up.

Led by Jagadish Shukla and four associates at his George Mason University-based Institute of Global Environment and Society, NCAR researcher Kevin Trenberth and 14 little-known “climate scientists” joined in signing an astounding letter that shows how far they will go to defend their turf and cause.

It asks President Obama, Attorney General Loretta Lynch and Obama science advisor John Holdren to investigate “organizations that have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change,” under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act.

The letter claims the organizations’ actions “have been extensively documented,” and their “misdeeds” must be “stopped as soon as possible,” so that the world can “restabilize the Earth’s climate, before even more lasting damage is done” to human health, agriculture, biodiversity and the world’s poorest people.

The letter’s ironies, fallacies and falsehoods are almost too numerous to recount.

First, the attack on skeptic scientists was launched from a university named for George Mason, the patriot who wrote the original Virginia version of our Bill of Rights. They include freedom of speech, association, assembly, petitioning our government, and not having livelihoods and other property unreasonably seized. Sadly, it reflects the appalling state of “academic freedom” on too many campuses, which today celebrate every kind of diversity except diversity of opinion.

Second, this action is a blatant effort to (a) coerce, intimidate, slander and silence scientists and organizations that question human-caused climate dangers; (b) forcibly shut down skeptic research, funding, speech and publication; (c) destroy skeptics’ funding, businesses and livelihoods; (d) protect alarmist funding, standing and influence; and (e) bankrupt skeptics, who would have to spend personal fortunes responding to RICO charges and a Justice Department that has limitless resources at its disposal.

Third, the RICO-20 signed their names as members of university faculties and government agencies – suggesting that they represent their organizations and/or these organizations endorse their efforts. If that is the case, it represents another blatant double standard – and a tacit endorsement of the RICO agenda.

Will those institutions now demand that the RICO-20 remove any mention of their affiliations? Will they step forward to vigorously defend academic freedom, constitutional rights, and a scientific method that is severely undermined by this letter and other toxic battles over manmade climate cataclysm claims?

Fourth, RICO is used to prosecute underlying patterns or practices of criminal behavior. This letter may constitute just “acting out.” But whether it represents a pattern of alarmist parties illegally engaging in items (a) through (e) above by calling for criminal prosecution of climate skeptics – or whether opposing the ideological and political campaign for the anti-fossil fuel climate agenda constitutes the required “criminal enterprise” – remains unanswered.

In any event, the “misdeeds” alluded to in the RICO-20 letter are studies, reports and discussions that contradict alarmist allegations and what skeptics charge are exaggerations, fabrications and computer model failures that underlie those claims. This extensive library of challenges to the climate chaos thesis includes peer-reviewed NIPCC Climate Change Reconsidered reports, international climate skeptic conferences, and numerous articles, op-eds, interviews and briefings. They clearly undermine climate chaos theory, but they are protected free speech and reflect honest, replicable science.

This raises the fifth point, that “racketeering” means conducting a “racket.” The term is commonly understood to mean fraudulently offering to solve a problem, because the problem does not actually exist and/or the proffered “solution” would do nothing to solve the problem. Many would say this definition accurately describes the Climate Crisis Industry.

Climate change has been “real” throughout Earth and human history. Driven by powerful natural forces that we do not yet understand and certainly cannot control, it has ranged from gradual to sudden, from beneficial to harmful or even devastating. Contrary to alarmist assertions and computer models, there is still no observational evidence that what we are experiencing today: is different from what our ancestors confronted; is now driven by plant-fertilizing carbon dioxide instead of by the natural forces of yore; or could be prevented or controlled by ending fossil fuel use and dramatically lowering our living standards.

In fact, the notion that we can “restabilize” an unstable and frequently fluctuating planetary climate is ludicrous. So is any claim that carbon-based fuels are superfluous or readily dispensable – or that they are more damaging to human health, agriculture, biodiversity and the world’s poorest people than eliminating those fuels and relying on expensive, land-intensive, unreliable wind, solar and biofuel “substitutes.”

Equally doubtful is any suggestion that the IGES/COLA (Center for Ocean-Land-Atmosphere Studies) can understand or predict Earth’s ongoing climate variations by focusing on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, and ignoring the solar, cosmic, oceanic and other natural forces that govern climate.

However, IGES/COLA derived 99.6% of its 2014 funding ($3.8 million in taxpayer money) from NASA, NOAA and the National Science Foundation, according to IRS Form 990 and other documents. Under the Obama Administration, those agencies have been almost completely co-opted by the alarmist climate agenda – and would likely terminate funding for any organization that expressed doubts about CO2, reduced its focus on greenhouse gases, or reengineered its climate models to reflect the full panoply of natural forces and thereby better assure accurate monsoon and climate forecasting.

Indeed, the latest Form 990 reveals, Dr. Shukla and his wife received salaries and other compensation totaling $499,145 in 2014 from their tax-exempt research organization. Dr. Shukla worked there only part-time, and his $333,048 compensation package “was presumably on top of his $250,866-per-year [George Mason] academic salary.” That totals $750,000 a year to the RICO-20 leader and his family “from public money for climate work & going after skeptics,” Professor Roger Pielke, Jr. wrote.

The ultimate irony would be an evenhanded investigation that exonerates the skeptic organizations that the RICO-20 want investigated – and results in charges against multiple corporations and organizations (and government agencies?) that engaged in collusion, data manipulation, junk modeling and other deceitful climate research practices that have been highlighted over the years.

The Internal Revenue Service’s targeting of conservative groups could well be what inspired the now fashionable idea of using the Justice Department to prosecute political opponents. The failure of the IRS and DOJ to penalize any of the perpetrators in those cases suggests that prosecution of alarmist fraud or racketeering is highly unlikely under the current administration.

However, the new 2017 administration could take a very different position. At the very least, a new Congress and Executive Branch could derail the climate alarm money train, initiate robust (and long overdue) debate on climate science and models, provide equal funding to skeptics, and end the alarmism. Potential sauce for the gander should make Dr. Shukla and fellow alarmists think twice about their tactic.

This RICO travesty shows how desperate alarmists have become. They are losing the climate science fight. Their models are increasingly contradicted by reality. Their ad hominem attacks will ultimately fail.

They also face major odds in Paris, where they may get a toothless treaty that makes empty promises to redistribute hundreds of billions of dollars from Formerly Rich Countries whose energy use and economic growth are hobbled – but places no binding emission targets on poor countries that will keep developing, burning coal and sending atmospheric carbon dioxide levels ever higher … with no effect on the climate.

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow, author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death, and coauthor of Cracking Big Green: Saving the world from the Save-the-Earth money machine.

73 thoughts on “Climate activists want us prosecuted under RICO

  1. Actually I would support prosecutions of Climate Activists under RICO.

    Pretty obvious with the climate-gate emails, inability of papers to get published and fraud in the temperature records just where the collusion lies.

    • Agreed. given the vast and horrific scope of the impact these climate crusaders have had on third world and marginal populations, I’d think that crimes against humanity charges would be entirely appropriate.

  2. Here’s a quote from one of these guys (Barry Klinger) who sees nothing wrong with this: “I signed the letter under the assumption (which I still think is valid) that any RICO investigation into climate funding would be a relatively limited affair, like the tobacco one was (as far as I know). It would be wrong if, contrary to my expectation, this became environmentalist harassment of scientists like past conservative investigations of some scientists. And it would be a shame if people on both sides of these issues dive into personal attacks which will further polarize debates that are already too polarized.”

    So no intention of anyone being harassed. Just the corporations who fund this lavish denial conspiracy. And who were the scientists ‘harassed’ by “past conservative investigations” anyway?

    • This reminds me of Joseph McCarthy who had no clue what damage he was doing to individual people. He, himself, was a useful idiot who was thrown on the ash heap when he become inconvenient.

      “I signed the letter under the assumption (which I still think is valid) that any RICO investigation into climate funding would be a relatively limited affair, … ”

      Just another useful idiot.

      • commie bob Ah no, the man was dying of hepatitis, he was trying to get everything out prior. Vets were mixed on him. My dad thought he was wrong but felt that the disloyal opposition was attacking a sick vet trying to look after the country.

      • commieBob

        1) McCarthy also demonstrated great skill as a raging alcoholic

        2) Poor little Barry Klinger: “Useful idiot”? Nope. “Idiot”? Definitely.

  3. Quoting from WikiPedia:
    In 1940, he [Lysenko] became director of the Institute of Genetics within the USSR’s Academy of Sciences, and Lysenko’s anti-Mendelian doctrines were further secured in Soviet science and education by the exercise of political influence and power. Scientific dissent from Lysenko’s theories of environmentally acquired inheritance was formally outlawed in 1948.

  4. Bishop Hill is reporting that the letter has been removed from the IGES website. The speculation is that the letter generated a lot of unwanted interest in the authors’ funding and alliances.

    • Note that Paul Driessen’s piece links to my 9/19 WUWT comment about the RICO letter’s enslavement to what is ultimately a single highly questionable source for the “corrupt scientists/organizations” notion. I’d suggest the IGES people won’t like additional unwanted attention on who provides them with political talking point material.

  5. The new school of science is a deconstruction of the old. Scientific models formerly had to work (predict successfully); now in academia models only need to be (1) reviewed by certified peers, (2) published in certified journals, and (3) withstand a claim that they are approved by a consensus of certified practitioners. Popper called those three inter-subjective testing. Imagine — “testing”! So in the new version, no method exists for post modern scientists to defend models that don’t work except via the legal system and an action for tortious interference with academic freedom.

  6. The left uniformly uses intellectual violence to advance its agenda, tactically, by suppressing of free speech.

    This is my fundamental gripe with liberals. They suppress liberty.

    Make no mistake, the global warming issue is just one front in the left’s war with the truth. The death culture that embodies the left, is advancing in every dimension that has as it objectives: the destruction of the family, the elimination of private property, elimination of commerce, the destruction of the human population, and the elimination of freedom on a global and minute scale, that is , personal freedom, intellectual freedom, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom to travel, and freedom to pursue happiness.

    This is the objective of the left.

    AGW is a farcical branch of that effort but one the UN can hide its actions within.

    So why would the left NOT use RICO and EVERY other means to advance its agenda regardless of whether it is legitimate of not. This is the new war and we are involved. No nuclear bomb could facilitate the destruction of humanity at the level that the UN has so-far succeeded in accomplishing.

    We may ague in the minutia about which data set this and what model that, but those are just stones on the river flooding us with real personal injury to our minds, families and persons. RICO will definitely be used against each one of us.

    • An excellent summation Paul. I can’t help but think that the Russians are behind much of this. It seems to me much like germ warfare. The perpetrators may not be able to stop the germs from spreading and thereby infecting themselves.

      • James Francisco, No, we and they have differences, but we have more in common. They need a strong USA and we need a strong Russia. We can’t keep the peace alone nor can they. They were our first friends, try and remember that, oddly they do. The USSR was a temporary interruption of this friendship. The Russians will settle their own internal affairs in their own good time. As for Syria, just like us, they don’t like betraying an ally. They have learned from our mistakes when we did so.

  7. This letter may constitute just “acting out”.

    I recall that in the early days of the NAZIs some of legal actions that we being called for were thought by many to be just ” acting out”.

    • For Mike the Morlock. I should have said that I suspect the Russians may have been involved in encouraging the global warming scare and environmental movement in the 70s and 80s. They could have stopped years ago. They have been very clever in stirring up problems in many countries. They used to brag that they would take us over without firing a shot. You said they were our first friends. With friends like the Russians who need enemys. If they didn’t start this enviroment/global warming craziness, they certainly missed a great plan to destroy our industrial economy. Without a strong industrial economy you cannot have a strong military. Without a strong military we could be forced to submit to their will, just like Austria, Checkoslovackia and others did with Germany about 78 years ago.

  8. As Odin Comments above concentrate on future prosecutions on what now appears to be theft of public monies and redistribution to extended family Shukla et al, That why he has removed the letter. You can bet your royal XXX that the TEAM will drop this whole RICO thing in the next few days/weeks, if not already. I’m willing to surmise that the guy is really in the deep XXXX with his funders and University by now. Refer to climateaudit.

  9. Well I’m not one who believes that the RICO act is anything but an end run around constitutional guarantees of fair trial; it’s the flailings of a tyrannical government.

    Like the Joe McCarthy investigations of the cold war, the tendency is to throw the baby out with the bath water.

    Yes a lot of what came to light regarding communist affiliations that proved to be true, would seem to justify the witch hunt, but such investigation should never come at the cost of trashing due process. So for me, I vote nyet on RICO.

    But that does not mean that I don’t find the actions of these RICO 20 mostly unknown apparent scoundrels, to be totally repulsive.

    That a fellow New Zealand origin person should lead this sorry claque, to me is a travesty.

    We pride ourselves in being fair minded people.

    But we won’t soon be taken down by the likes of KT.

    So they are only going to go after the corporations who fund these misguided skeptics.

    Well they haven’t funded me; but then I am not a skeptic. I know darn well that KT’s stupid cartoon picture, does not represent the Physics of any real planet, let alone the one we live on.

    Thanks for the expose on this, Paul.

    I’m sure there’s a mediaeval Roman mumbo jumbo saying, that means, “Don’t let the bastards grind you down.”

    But I don’t have MofB’s facility with that lingo.


    • I’m sure there’s a mediaeval Roman mumbo jumbo saying, that means, “Don’t let the bastards grind you down.”

      –Illegtiimi Non Carborundum–

    • George E. Smith
      September 29, 2015 at 9:38 am

      “Yes a lot of what came to light regarding communist affiliations that proved to be true, would seem to justify the witch hunt.”

      A witch hunt is the persecution of convenient innocent scapegoats, who have done no wrong, but who have been falsely accused. Please note the key word innocent. I fail to see how Soviet agents in the U.S. establishment could be considered innocent, speaking strictly from an American point of view.

      Therefore, Joe McCarthy’s efforts to root out Reds and Soviet agents in the government of the U.S.A cannot in any way be called a witch hunt.

      “As for their quarry, it was not, as The Hill delicately stated, “communist sentiment during the Cold War.” Literally hundreds of Soviet agents taking orders from the KGB and related Soviet intelligence agencies to bring down the American republic had become deeply embedded in the U.S. government in the 1930s and 1940s. Most of them remained undiscovered, and many were active well into the 1950s.

      After World War II, Red-hunters in Congress did their best to expose this communist menace — a menace that we now know, following declassification of some FBI and intelligence files in Washington and Moscow, was much worse than we thought.

      But when McCarthy was demonized, all the Red rats in the U.S. establishment were free to scurry off, and carry on, comrade.

      And the mindbenders crafted the neologism McCarthyism to cover their tracks.

      You should know them by their methods. The demonization of Joe McCarthy should serve as a beacon, and clarion wake-up call to those who still don’t get it. In short, we’ve been had.

      “… the FBI files, which backed up what McCarthy was saying, had been withheld for 50 years. And we now have them, or many of them, and they show essentially that he was right in general. There was a massive penetration of the government, and that it was covered up, and that he threatened that cover-up. And that’s why he was isolated, demonized, and destroyed. That’s the technique.”

      If any crimes have been committed in the Great CAGW Panic, then those responsible parties should be brought to justice, and not their victims.

      “to investigate”organizations that have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change”

      That sword cuts both ways.

      • Thanks Steve P for explaining the wrong that was done to Senator McCarthy. I believed the bad things said about McCarthy for years. Hollywood thinks he was after them. He was just trying to get the communist out of our government. Ann Coulter devoted a chapter in one her books about him.

      • I take it that you are asserting that NO total innocents were caught up in old Joe’s investigations; If there were in fact none, then yes I would withdraw my ” witch hunt ” which of course referred to ONLY any such innocents; if any.


        So what about Dr. Robert Oppenheimer ? I’ve seen a recent documentary on his case (and Edward Teller). So what would be your verdict ??

      • George E. Smith
        September 29, 2015 at 1:13 pm

        “I take it that you are asserting that NO total innocents were caught up in old Joe’s investigations…”

        No, I can’t make that assertion, nor did I. Innocents are always caught up in everything. The point is that there were plenty enough Reds in the US government to justify tough and thorough investigations.

        Oppenheimer’s own words, associations, and actions were enough to cast the glare of suspicion on him, and already by the early 1940s, the FBI had a file on him. In 1954, his security clearance was not renewed, but I don’t think Joe McCarthy had any direct role in the review of JRO’s clearance. More likely, those with an axe to grind against JRO used his past Red affiliations to undermine him.

        People lose their clearances for a wide variety of reasons. That’s no witch hunt, but it is tight security, not a bad thing to have around atom bombs.

        Somehow the idea has come down that Joe McCarthy was the only anti-Red crusader looking for, and finding Communists throughout the US establishment. The Red Scare in the USA had begun not long after the successful Bolshevik revolution in Russia, which seems to have had a connection with the lower East side of NYC, and certain American bankers, like Jacob Schiff.

        However, because McCarthyism was demonized so successfully, Reds remaining in the USA had been innoculated against any further investigation. Hunting for Reds withi the US fell out of favor, and most anti-Communist fervor was now directed at the external threat of the USSR, and its client states.

        Bottom line: there were plenty of Reds in the US establishment, just as Joe McCarthy charged. The idea of McCarthyism being closely identified with a witch hunt illustrates the success of the mindbenders to pervert reality, and demonize the guy who was right all along. Nothing happened to Oppenheimer beyond loss of his clearance. He wasn’t banishd to Terre Haute or Fargo, put on a chain gang, or made to walk the plank.

        You want to talk about the innocent; I want to talk about the guilty. After they escaped McCarthy’s grasp, I wonder what kind of work those furtive US Reds went on to?

      • I meant to add also that the real witch hunts took place in Europe during the Little Ice Age, when all manner of unfortunate wretches in their thousands were blamed for the bad weather (and everything else), accused of witchcraft, and burned alive at the the stake.

        Now that is a witch hunt.

      • I never suggested that Oppenheimer was a McCarthy target; just a witch hunt target.

        And due process, is supposed to ensure that innocents aren’t harassed.

        And I wouldn’t want to compare Joe McCarthy’s congressional investigation process, with the current process that the Congress is applying to investigate the Benghazi incident, or Clinton’s private e-mail server incident.


  10. Part of me wants to say ‘bring it on’.

    I’d love to see Trenberth, Mann, and Oreskes under cross examination. It might be the closest we could ever come to actually getting them on a debate stage.

    • Of the three Mann is the smartest. He knows he’s on the left foot and doesn’t want to commit.

      Trenberth and Oreskes contradict themselves every second sentence and they seem to really believe what they say; they would be a treat in the witness stand.

  11. If this occurs it will be another nail in the US Constitution coffin.
    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
    Climate Change “denial” is nothing more than criticism of government policy.
    Criticizing the government is not criminal.
    AGW/Climate Change is a government sponsored religion.
    It would appear that Climate Change Activism is an endorsement of the philosophy and principles of left wing dictators such as Stalin, MAO, Pol Pot and Hitler.

    • How ironic Walt that only a handful of words later, in the Bill of rights those same
      ” people ” suddenly becomes an organized ” militia ” whose rights are guaranteed in the second amendment. Seems to me, that it simply says: – ” The rights of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. ” So when are the ” people ” not ” the people ” ??

      Who cares what reason (not condition) the authors gave for their admonition ??

      What if they had said instead:

      — The sun rising in the East, being necessary for a warm day at the beach, in a free State; the rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. —

      Exact same meaning under the rules of English grammar. Just a different (and equally irrelevant) reason given.

      g >> G

      • A strong safe full of large guns (and ammo…they forgot about the ammo), being useful for keeping varmints off of ones poppity, the right to keep and bear arms…

      • George,

        “How ironic Walt that only a handful of words later, in the Bill of rights those same
        ” people ” suddenly becomes an organized ” militia ” whose rights are guaranteed in the second amendment. Seems to me, that it simply says: – ” The rights of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. ” So when are the ” people ” not ” the people ” ??”

        I think you misunderstand the language they used.

        A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

        The well-regulated militia means a serious military, which though necessary for security, by it’s very existence makes overthrowing the Constitutional Republic via coup d’état an ongoing threat, in the minds of the founders. So, as with virtually every part of the founding documents, a counter-balancing power is established (an armed citizenry), that would make such an eventuality far more difficult to pull off.

      • “””””…..

        September 29, 2015 at 10:37 pm

        George, …..”””””

        No John; it is you who misunderstands the language. That language is ordinary English; albeit the English of an earlier time.

        And it matters not a jot what the heck a ‘ militia ‘ or a ‘ well regulated militia ‘ is.

        The meaning of the second amendment is not to be found in any dictionary. It is to the English grammar book that you need to go.

        NOTHING, in the rules of English grammar causes or could cause, the meaning of all that gobbledegook about a militia, to modify (in any way), the simple statement of the second amendment.

        It simply says: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. ” And that is all it says.

        The authors gave ONE of many possible reasons; I gave you an alternative reason (fictional). Neither one alters the concise meaning of the statement: ” The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. ”

        Incidently ONLY that part of the second amendment is to be found over the headquarters of the National Rifle Association.

        It is interesting that in the FIRST amendment; we have the words: … or abridging the freedom of speech, … which means taking ‘ War and Peace ‘ and turning it into the classic comic.

        But in the second amendment we find instead the word used is ” infringed ” Which means; don’t even mess around on the edges of this instruction.

        But governments everywhere around the US are constantly chipping away at the edges that they are specifically ordered to keep off.

        ” The people ” of the first and second amendments, is NOT a word from colloquial chatting. It is a LEGAL term, and the very same ” WE the people …” that is found right up front of the preamble to the US Constitution.

        There are THREE legal parties to the contract, that is the US Constitution.

        First is WE the people, second is ‘ the several sovereign States ‘ all 57 of them in this Obama era, and lastly is ‘ The United States ‘ (of America ) which is basically that thing in Washington DC.

        It is that ” United States “, whose …defence and general welfare … that the Congress is authorized to collect taxes ” to provide for “; in the first clause of Article I, Section eight of the Constitution.

        Nowhere does it say to pay for the welfare of tom dick and harry.

        My how far we have strayed from what the framers authorized.


        Well John, I see I didn’t quite get the gist of where you were going. It seems we are more in agreement, than disagreement.

        I have wondered about that …” well regulated militia ” as some have claimed it means the National Guard. I have wondered if it instead they were implying that someone (else) should ” regulate ” whatever the heck that militia was; maybe we ” the people ” should.

        Anyway, I think you agree that it is we the people who have an inherent right to keep and bear arms. Well we may need it to defend our ” unalienable right ” …. to life .. as declared in the Declaration of Independence where we say we keep all of our rights we were born with.

      • George,

        “That language is ordinary English; albeit the English of an earlier time.”

        Right, and today we might say;

        Since a well trained and equipped military force is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

        ‘Regulars’ for instance was a term that meant essentially what we mean now by something like “real soldiers”, or “professional soldiers”, in military/history jargonese . . as opposed to a band of fighters, volunteers, etc., acting as soldiers, I’m rather sure.

        There’s nothing irrelevant about the “reason given”, to my mind, as will be clear perhaps if one considers recent calls for banning “assault rifles” and “high capacity magazines”, since those are not needed for hunting, personal protection, sports shooting, etc. They are needed to resist a “well regulated militia”, so to speak. The “reason” was included for a good reason, it seems clear to me. And several higher court rulings have essentially spelled out the good reason.

        Spelling it out clearly in the Amendment, was apparently (to me) not thought to be conducive to a sense of unity/comradery between civilians and their brothers in arms. Just saying “To be able to fight the US Army” is a bit . . awkward shall we say.

      • PS~

        ” I have wondered if it instead they were implying that someone (else) should ” regulate ” whatever the heck that militia was …”

        Currently his name is Obama, the Commander in Chief.

  12. This should have come as no surprise. It has been painfully obvious that certain segments of the alarmist camp are corrupt to the core. Add in the big money that we have seen recently, and you would expect that some corrupt individuals wold stop at nothing to eliminate threats to their operations. I would agree that the Administration’s use of the IRS, DOJ, EPA, BATF and others against political opposition set the stage for this. It is also hard to miss the fact that nobody has been held accountable. So now seems a good time ramp up the pressure on the opposition.

    This RICO travesty shows how desperate alarmists have become.

    On the contrary, they are emboldened. They see an opportunity to destroy, once and for all, their most hated and feared opposition.

    George E. Smith wrote:

    So they are only going to go after the corporations who fund these misguided skeptics.

    We could check with Willie Soon to see how that works out.

    Just an added thought, to put the money in perspective. Two very famous and long established research centers are Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute and the Jackson Laboratory in Bar Harbor, Me. One could compare the funding these two prestigious organizations get with the funding that pours into some of these Climate Science non-profits.

  13. When I remember correctly, than one of the “scientist”, who signed this RICO- letter, was K. Trenberth. Trenberth must accused himself, because he declared often times, that the rise of the “mean temperature” from 1950 onward was due to the pacific decadel shift 1976 and the El Ninos 1986-89 and 1997/98 and has nothing to do with CO2.

  14. “When your scientific position fails, you sue (aka Mann-Steyn), and when that fails you ask the President to prosecute, when that fails, you think of something else, be creative. But in no manner, shape or form will you change a discredited scientific position if that position supports climate change.” – anonymous fictional climate activist

    Investment bankers who heard this cheered in agreement. There is a lot of money to be made in carbon credits. And the great thing is since it is all imaginary, contrary to say a stock in a manufacturing firm which represents something tangible, there is literally no limit to the wealth to be generated.

  15. Transparent mob. They like freedom, as long as they make the rules. I cannot believe how people get away with this climate change propaganda for so long.

  16. Wow! what a scam.

    Per it’s 990 IGES receives $3,832k from the government (tax free), friends and family get compensation of $1,066k, and another $2,252k paid to others (more friends & family?) as “program services”. Then give $100k to a charity you founded in India to boot ( wonder if that is allowed under terms of the government grant that I presume paid for climate research)!

    I wonder how many other famous proponents of climate change have similar arrangements, and to what extremes they would go preserve their cash cows?

  17. The real question is, how successful was the RICO lawsuit against the Tobacco companies? I can answer that, it was VERY successful. So, you should really be thinking about what is (was) different in terms of what a modern lawsuit would result in.

    You need to argue that the energy companies are somehow not guilty of the same thing. Seems they are..

    • I think one of the fundamental differences would be:
      People have a choice to buy a cigarette. People do NOT have a choice whether their money goes into Green boondoggles and scams.

    • Cavanagh says: “People have a choice to buy a cigarette. People do NOT have a choice…”

      I can’t see how “choice” matters in racketeering. In both cases companies are misleading consumers knowing they are spreading disinformation.

      dbstealey says: “You think the tobacco argument and the CAGW argument are the same?”

      No. I didn’t say that. One case is killing people with cancer; the other, killing the planet via climate change. Seems not the same. That’s why I said, “you should really be thinking about what is (was) different in terms of what a modern lawsuit would result in.” And the “same thing” is “racketeering”.

      • traffy,

        I really wish you were the lawyer doing the RICO prosecuting. The defense would demolish your illogical arguments.

        You write that skeptics are…

        …killing the planet via climate change.

        If it were not for those baseless assertions, you wouldn’t have much at all to say.

        You are bearing false witness. Not that you give a damn about morality, honesty, ethics, or basic justice. Your kind never do. Bearing false witness used to be the most reprehensible of crimes in both Western and Eastern cultures. But now it’s just another low-life tactic used by haters like you. You use underhanded attacks like that because you lack even the most basic evidence to support your beliefs.

        But just for fun, let’s see you quantify what you falsely alleged:

        1. Produce verifiable evidence showing that the planet is being killed. Let’s see the corpse.

        2. Produce verifiable evidence showing that global harm being caused as a verifiable result of added CO2. Give examples and metrics. Show the specific global harm; no “what ifs” accepted.

        3. Define “climate change”. The climate always changes, but for the past century those changes have been quite a bit less than during most of recorded history. Explain how this can be “killing the planet”.

        I could go on and on, but it’s clear you are disconnected with reality. You could not succeed in the real world of a competitive free market, so you hide your failure by attacking the system that allows you to be a parasite on productive members of society, while blaming them for all your personal problems and debunked beliefs.

        So there are 3 questions for you to quantify. Vague answers lose the argument for you. Produce verifiable numbers and solid evidence that what you wrote is true. I don’t think you can support any of them, but here’s your chance to show that another weak mind has not been so colonized by eco-garbage that you can no longer think straight. The ball is in your court; put up or shut up.

      • traffy says:

        One case is killing people with cancer; the other, killing the planet via climate change.

        Identify/name one person who was ever killed by man-made global warming.

      • Yes I second that, put up or shut up, Show us somebody with “climate change” listed as a cause of death.

  18. Not sure about how it works in the USA, but here, if someone makes an accusation of this kind and has no grounds for it, they are likely to find themselves in court for damages. Wait a minute, I seem to recall that those Americans are even more keen to sue the shirts off false accusers, than us. So, let’s go at it.

  19. I’m Brian and so is my wife.

    This reverse logic, sandal wearing weekend hippie, crypto green fascism for the hard of thinking, must be challenged at every opportunity.

Comments are closed.