Deposition sheds troubling new light on the #RICO20/DOJ “potential investigation of climate deniers”

14 of the RICO20

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

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, (not shown) 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

Guest essay by Chris Horner

Yesterday, in a Senate hearing, Attorney General Loretta Lynch acknowledged internal discussions about possible Department of Justice racketeering investigations into political opponents for “forestall[ing] America’s response to climate change” — that is, political speech, in opposition to a political agenda.

The most high-profile contribution to this campaign comes from certain publicly-funded professors, expressly in the capacity of their privileged positions, calling for such investigations in the widely circulated “RICO-20” letter.  Not one of them cited to any paper authored, no honorary or academic society, or any award as somehow credentialing their stance.  They called for these inquisitions solely citing to their positions with (largely) public universities.

In light of these efforts to abuse governmental power, I and the Competitive Enterprise Institute attempted to obtain documents shedding light on how taxpayer-funded professors used their public positions and resources in this campaign.

We were stonewalled by George Mason University, where six of the RICO-20 teach. GMU at first denied it had any records which we now know exist. GMU has since produced them in response to a subpoena, and they are under protective order awaiting ruling on their release — hundreds of emails related to this campaign, sent and received using public resources, but withheld from public scrutiny.

With yesterday’s admission by the Attorney General, we thought the public would benefit from reading about this campaign, including what publicly funded academics using their taxpayer-funded perches to call for such investigations​ really know about their own demands.

The following is a transcript of a February deposition of George Mason University Professor Edward Maibach, co-ringleader of the “RICO-20”, in the Virginia Freedom of Information Act suit Horner et al. v. George Mason University.

These records we seek are documents the academy doesn’t want to let the public see.  Taking the transcript into account and the subject matter of the records requested, one can draw reasonable assumptions about any documents responsive to our request: they shed light on how this letter came about, how this campaign to neuter free speech works, with whom, and that the campaigners are likely recipients of some of the money they see being shaken out of those they view as political opponents.

If the court rules in our favor and orders those emails released, they’ll tell a very interesting story, and be quite instructive to the public.

In the meantime, some aspects of that story can be learned from our February deposition of Professor Maibach, the transcript of which is below. We believe you will see the effort’s two principal objectives are to cut off private funding for others — those who oppose the RICO-20’s political agenda — and obtain ever more money for their campaign, in the form of a settlement modeled after the tobacco master settlement.

In particular, check out pages 17 – 32, 45 – 48, 59 – 60, 67 – 72, 80 – 83.​

The Transcript: Maibach Edward 2002-05-2016 (PDF)

Some excerpts:

In broad strokes, the letter was an  encouragement to the President and the Attorney  General to follow up on Senator Whitehouse’s  suggestion to call for a RICO investigation of ExxonMobil based on the possibility that they had knowingly deceived the public about climate change and its potential dangers, and in doing so — you know, for the express purpose of preventing American society and global society in dealing with a clear and present danger.

Q. So what you’re telling me is, while you’re not aware of the specifics of RICO and how the law works, you think that what ExxonMobil specifically was doing was troubling and you wanted that stopped?

A. Correct.

Q. So what is climate denial? I’ll ask that.

A. What’s climate denial? Good question.

Activities that are intentionally misrepresenting what is known to be true about climate change so as to convince people that climate change is not, in fact, a reality.

Q. So climate denial broadly bothers you then?

A. Mischaracterization of the truth specifically intended to undermine the public’s well-being, yes, typically does bother me.

Q. Can you give me an example of these misrepresentations by ExxonMobil or others?

A. No, not off the top of my head.

There have been activities being funded by to American – the 9 American people and people worldwide.

Q. So you believe that someone knowingly misrepresenting a risk posed by climate change merits investigation?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. Okay. So if someone, for example, were to knowingly hide data indicating an increase in temperatures over the years, that would merit investigation?

A. Say it again, please.

Q. If someone were to hide or misrepresent or deceive the public relating to data which showed an increase in global temperatures over time, that would merit investigation?

A. It would be — I suppose it depends on who it is.  But, yes, it would certainly be a deception. And as such, it would be an act that, in my view, ought to be exposed.

Q. So you said hiding an increase in temperatures would be a knowing deception, depending on who it is. I believe that’s what you said a  minute ago; is that correct?

A. Sure.

Q. What if you knowingly hid a decrease in 20 global temperatures? Would that be a knowing deception?

A. Sure.

Q. I have one question — I’m sorry, Thomas, and Professor Maibach — I forgot.

I want to follow up on one thing. Mr. Hardin had asked you about individuals, if they knowingly deceived the American — is – knowingly deceived the American people about the risk of climate change is the offense or what warrants investigation, right?

A. In my view.

Q. Okay. So if Christy and Spenser[sic]  — they  keep the satellite temperature record. If they were found to have increased — I’m sorry, not increased — hidden an increase in the temperature in the satellite record, would that warrant investigation as knowingly deceiving the American people?

A. They — they as individual climate scientists, if they are fudging their data, then I would say, yes, that would be investigation worthy.

But I wouldn’t think that that would be investigation worthy by the Federal Government. I would think it would be investigation worthy by their funders or by the journals that had published their work.

MR. MONCURE: You’ve already made it clear that you’re not an expert on RICO.  A. Correct.

MR. HORNER: But he is an expert on what he wrote. He’s the world’s leading expert on what he wrote. And he wrote that, “knowingly deceiving the American people about the risk of climate change warrants investigation.”


Q. And I’m saying, it’s not just — I mean, of all the people who know, it would seem to be climate scientists as opposed to CEOs is my premise. So as opposed to going after CEOs, how about a scientist?

If they knowingly deceived the public by hiding an increase in temperatures, does that also warrant investigation? That’s my question.

A. It does.

Q. Okay. What if they hide a decline in 6 temperatures? Does that warrant an investigation?

A. Any knowing deception warrants – in science warrants an investigation.


newest oldest most voted
Notify of

……..Attorney General Loretta Lynch says DOJ has discussed legal action against climate change deniers


“‘E pur si muove.” (It still moves.)

george e. smith

Can we get a detailed breakdown of the specific contributions to the letter, by each of the RICO 20 authors.
Each of them should get the credit that is due them.

old construction worker

“Attorney General Loretta Lynch says DOJ has discussed legal action against climate change deniers’
I understand the discussion was about a civil suit.

Follow the money:

If The White House took up Senator Whitehouse’s suggestion to wage a full investigation into the fossil fuel industry for all of their collusion and stonewalling to confuse the public about the harm of fossil fuels and if a RICO suit were successful and if there was a settlement between the government and the fossil fuel industry, there is no question in my mind that a good portion of that money should be spent on a national campaign to educate people on the risks of climate change and build their resolve to work towards solutions.

Prof. Edward Maibach, George Mason University, Director of the Center for Climate Change Communication.

…the mission of the center is to conduct social science research focused on public engagement and climate change. As director, I suppose my chief job is raising the money we need to do the research…


The best part is that filing a RICO charge is a very specific process. The way he keeps phrasing whom he wants investigated is “Anyone who (1)KNOWINGLY hides/conceals data that would (2) demonstrate temperature increases,(3) with the SPECIFIC intention of undermining the public’s well being.
That means that in order for the investigation to succeed and/or result in criminal (racketeering) charges, being brought, ALL THREE criteria MUST be proven. Now, it’s probably fairly easy to find documentation that someone KNOWINGLY has done something…if indeed there are people KNOWINGLY doing that thing, BUT the RICO charge can only be effective IF the data being hidden/concealed (2) demonstrates temperature increases AND was hidden with the (3) express purpose of undermining the public’s well being. THAT is going to be next to impossible to prove! People might conceal data out of greed, or for power, or for any number of self interested reasons. BUT….how on earth do they think they could prove that anything was concealed specifically because the concealers DESIRED to “undermine the public’s well being”????
These people are incredibly stupid and full of themselves and they prove it every single time they pull a stunt like this. Maibach had to ADMIT that he doesn’t know anything about the RICO laws or how they work or what they can and cannot do…BUT he signed his name to a letter demanding such a law be applied….to companies for whom he cannot “off the top of his head” accuse of any specific action in that regard!


From the article:
“Q. So what is climate denial? I’ll ask that.
A. What’s climate denial? Good question.
Activities that are intentionally misrepresenting what is known to be true about climate change so as to convince people that climate change is not, in fact, a reality.”
What about people who ” intentionally misrepresent what is known about climate change so as to convince people that human-caused climate change is, in fact, reality”? Shouldn’t these deceptive people also be subject to the same type of FBI investigation as ExxonMobile? In fact, the FBI has more reason to investigate these global warming advocates because many of them are givernment workers defrauding the U.S. taxpayers by giving them false information, instead of what we pay them for: the Truth. And it is not just a mistake on their part, the lying is deliberate. Deliberately presenting the American taxpayer with false information in an effort to keep the money flowing in. Sounds like a criminal conspiracy to me. Acutally, it IS a criminal conspiracy. We already have the evidence of it in their emails.

Gloateus Maximus

So, will the DoJ under a President Trump or Cruz turn the tables on the activist pseudoscientists who’ve cooked the climate books at such great cost to humanity and explore racketeering and conspiracy against them?

Gloateus Maximus

Left out the word “charges”.

I would hope so but doubt it

Evan Jones

I would hope not. That would be a sword that cuts both ways. Today we jail them? Tomorrow they jail us. Academic freedom must be maintained. For that to occur, it must apply to all sides in this.

Phil R

Evan Jones,
I agree for the most part. But “academics” aren’t saints (irregardless of how much many believe they are), and with academic freedom comes a level of responsibility and an expectation of honesty and objectivity. Academic freedom does not give one the freedom to commit fr*ud (if the actually did), and does not exempt them from investigation (and potential prosecution) if there is a valid reason to believe results were purposely f*dged to get desired results, and not the result of an honest mistake.


Just stop funding them!

Any time anyone questioned Hanson he put on his martyr costume.

Mickey Reno

That would be dangerous as well as unnecessary. All we have to do is muster the political will to say that most of these “studies” are not worthy of the taxpayer’s money, and cut off the funds. We can no longer afford to pay for Gavin Schmidt or Kevin Trenberth. NASA is duplicating the work of NOAA, one of them must go. The sucklings will starve (professionally) without the figurative milk-producing government teat (I’m attempting to use a feminine science narrative) and we’ll be rid of them for a while.
A side benefit will be that some kids at the margins will avoid going into lifelong debt in order to get worthless Ph.Ds, and universities will have to trim their budgets and reevaluate their core values. All-in-all, these are a few vastly overdue corrections to the corrupt cesspool of government funded science.

Horace Jason Oxboggle

Hook them up to one of those female glaciers! Problem solved!


…Attorney General Loretta Lynch says DOJ has discussed legal action against climate change deniers……..

george e. smith

What if we don’t deny climate changes, and can change just by driving 18.52 km down the road; AKA 10 Nautical Miles.
PS when Chris Horner, is driving a bulldozer, DO NOT get out in front of it !
Way to go Chris .

bit chilly

the climate change denial accusation is a straw man . i doubt there is one single adult on the planet that denies climate changes. weasel words from people with no moral fortitude.

george e. smith

Well they are also science ignoramasses, because they don’t even realize how totally looney toons the idea that climate could even stay unchanged over either space or time, really is.
I despise persons who toss around pseudo scientific labels as if they had some expertise, when they actually are totally science ignorant.
Note: science ignorance per se, or for that matter, ignorance about anything, is NOT a disease. We were all born with it, and I still have it.
But some people actually decide to be science stupid, and that is incurable.

bit chilly-
Thank you Professor Maibach for FINALLY explaining what climate change denial is!!
Climate change denial-“Activities that are intentionally misrepresenting what is known to be true about climate change so as to convince people that climate change is not, in fact, a reality.”
So….then…people like Michael Mann who attempt to hide the MWP and the LIA-things that are true about the climate’s changes, are climate change deniers! People who intentionally misrepresent what is known to be true-about the climate changes of the PAST-so as to convince people that climate change in the past is not, in fact, a reality-are climate change deniers!
I suggest that we ALL adopt Dr. Maibach’s description of “climate change denial” and apply it willingly and liberally to every conversation we have with AGW or CAGW supporters as the new “official definition”. 🙂


When we start holding these ” scientists ” ACCOUNTABLE for their claims, these outrageously STUPID claims will stop ! Let’s get back to logic

ian cairns

[snip – way over the top – policy violation -hate speech -mod]

As Bart Simson would say, “Eat my shorts” , but I would add this cautionary tail, Be very carful if you live by the AGW standard. If we cool down at all and the people see the hoax brought upon them, heads will roll alright, but they will not be the heads of the deniers…

Smart Rock

Oh my.:
[snip – the comment has been dealt with -mod]
I thought this website was about science with a bit of politics, not outdated and thoroughly offensive bigotry. Where are the moderators when we need them?
[The moderators were at the bank when that was posted, cashing our Big Oil paychecks. ~mod]


Smart Rock:
This website is about science with a bit of politics. But it is also a hotbed of despicable right-wing bigotry and misrepresentation that raises its ugly head whenever politics is mentioned; e.g. see the sub-thread in this thread that starts with a post from Paul Westhaver here.

Krudd Gillard of the Commondebt of Australia

Protecting their children from you.

george e. smith

I thought this site was actually supposed to be about things that are generally interesting; science just being one example of that.
Politics seems to creep in, when persons to whom more power has been granted than they are mentally or ethically capable of managing, decide to use pseudo science as a weapon to usurp even more power to the point of unelected dictatorship.
So we are back to the primitive times, when witch doctors took over communities by preying on the ignorance of the masses.
The witch doctors were just the precursors of the priests, and then the kings and emperors.
As a young person I left a totally idyllic garden of Eden to accept the welcome of a diverse community in a land of vast opportunity and freedom, where I felt I could contribute more to the world than I otherwise would be able to.
Since then I have watched a long sequence of charlatans, both native born and imported, dissipate what was achieved at great cost and sacrifice by those generations that came before mine.
Of late, that idle waste of resources has been changed to a deliberate destructive Trojan horse lookalike, with a deliberate agenda to destroy irreversibly what millions have given their lives to create and protect.
You speak of ….. ‘despicable right-wing bigotry’ ….. which would seem to me to be the opposite end of a spectrum, in contrast with the clearly left wing bigotry which we have had to put up with for perhaps the last quarter century, with a few token interruptions by those who have tried in vain to put the train back on the rails it was side-tracked from.
My kids aren’t even aware of the degree of freedom that I was able to enjoy, as an immigrant. Their generation are virtual slaves compared to what I had as a new American; and unfortunately, much of that came about because too many persons have come here with no intention whatsoever of becoming Americans, and they brought all of their societal pestilences with them with the aim of installing those in place of what they gave a written promise to protect from ALL enemies, both domestic and foreign.
I don’t even know whether my kids are angry or not, because none of them seem to have any political thoughts at all. I wonder whether they believe that it has all become too out of control for them to even care.
Someone a whole lot smarter than me once said that Democracy could never survive as a viable form of society, because once people discovered they could vote themselves the power to take the fruits of another’s labors, they didn’t need to make any contribution themselves.
Socialism is parasitism, and most parasites eventually destroy their hosts.
The dumbest lethal organisms; microbes and viruses, by serendipity will mutate into less virulent strains, because if they kill their host too quickly, they lose the opportunity to propagate their kind.
Human parasites aren’t that smart, and they invariably suck the life blood out of those they enslave.
We were entrusted with a successful recipe for a better future for all. In this age of informational mobility, the contributors can set up shop anywhere on the planet, and short circuit the rapacious greed of those who only know how to obtain what they want by outright theft.
If you prefer, Richard, to have your hand in your brother’s pocket, then you have certainly earned the future that is coming your way.

Evan Jones

I object to the use of the word “perverts”. Too much value judgment from both sides, I think.

Quinn the Eskimo

Excellent set-up for where the investigations should really be focused.
I have a modest proposal.
What are the chances that Shukla is the sole example in all of US government-funded climate science of double-dipping through a shell “institute” that launders millions of dollars to the scientist and his family? What are the chances that Shukla is the only one clever enough to have conceived and executed this scam? What are the chances he did not discuss how he did it with his colleagues who were also drawing large sums of grant money from the federal climate teat?
You may call me a cynic, but I think the chances are very low on all three. It’s a good place for Mr. Horner and colleagues, or enterprising bloggers, to dig.

Dr. Bogus Pachysandra

Jagadish Shukla? Didn’t he graduate from Faber?

george e. smith

He’s the token minority, in a bunch of ‘white privileged’ folks swilling at the public trough (via grants).

lol – yes Faber College as in the film “Animal House” – I’m not posting that video clip again…

NW sage

We used to call it affirmative action not graduation!

The painstaking nature of the excellent set-up is admirable. I lack such patience, and admire it in others.

Yes, but I could have done without the following part…

Not one of them cited to any paper authored, no honorary or academic society, or any award as somehow credentialing their stance. They called for these inquisitions solely citing to their positions with (largely) public universities.

Didn’t we establish in a well written close by WE in his most recent post that credentials aren’t a prerequisite for having an opinion or producing a valid analysis or theory? Seems we should stick solely to the content and validity of the opinions/analysis and leave out credentials or lack thereof. This small part didn’t do anything for me. The rest seemed to easily stand on it’s own without this point IMHO.

Boulder SKeptic-
Credentials are not a prerequisite for having an opinion or producing valid analysis. These professors are allowed to have any OPINION they wish to. The author isn’t saying what you think he is.
He’s saying that NONE of these people deal with criminal behaviors/laws/investigations/racketeering in ANY way. They have ZERO experience or expertise or even evidence to analyze from which to have formed their stance/opinion that there is racketeering going on. None of them have produced a paper, or belongs to a society, or has been awarded for their work in the area of “protecting the public’s best interests” through vital experience and research into corporate rackets etc. They simply used their titles at public universities as the “clout” or credibility required to demand such an investigation take place.
In other words, their opinions lack any validity or content at all.

Thanks for the response. I believe I got his words as intended. That one part reads to me the same as warmists who say, that any objection to a paper, or a part of the CAGW theory is invalid because we’re not climate scientists. The opinion that CAGW sKeptics should be tried under RICO statues is easily deconstructed without resorting to any type of authority/credentials argument IMHO. That’s my point. I just don’t think it is needed.

In other words, their opinions lack any validity or content at all.

I completely agree. But I agree regardless of any lack of credentials.
I also agree in this case that their opinions likely lack validity BECAUSE they don’t have the experience/expertise you mentioned.

Credentials are not a prerequisite for having an opinion or producing valid analysis.

Again, we agree.

Murray Salby has been found guilty of that in both the USA and now Australia.

Peter Miller

Unfortunately the logic is not taken to its natural conclusion, namely that all manipulation of climate data for political, financial and ego purposes should be formally investigated by independent experts.
Step forward the gatekeepers of the GISS statistics and and more recently RSS, and let us never forget the Mann and his Team mates.

Totally agree, now they are manipulating the satellite data, which up to now, is the most reliable source of information on the Earth’s temperature. I suspect that there is a great deal of collusion between politicians and “crooked” scientists to “prove” that AGW is the main driver of climate. Agenda 21 beckons!

Is collusion a bad thing? – A. It would be — I suppose it depends on who it is.

Agenda 21 beckons!
The U.N. is now working on Agenda 2030…
“Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development”
I recommend a stiff drink-or 3- before reading the linked to nonsense.

Agenda 21 is the Hammonds and Bundys issue. BLM (an NGO) has forced over 200 ranchers off their land because 20% of mining rights have been sold to China and Russia. Hillary Clinton sold 20% of US uranium mining rights to Russian Uranium One as Secretary of State. The Hammonds and Bundys and supporters are in prison on NDAA charges. Agenda 21 has been here for quite a while; it’s sponsored by the Rothschilds; the people who own AP and Reuters (and the Weather Channel and a geoengineering firm)

Very true. That the irony of this:

They — they as individual climate scientists, if they are fudging their data, then I would say, yes, that would be investigation worthy.
But I wouldn’t think that that would be investigation worthy by the Federal Government. I would think it would be investigation worthy by their funders or by the journals that had published their work.

was apparently lost on Maibach is sad. That, or cynicism is his superpower.

Oh of course not! Scientists should never be investigated/punished by the Federal Government! No silly! Their funders should investigate them, or the journals that publish their work…let’s keep the Federal Government out of….um wait….doesn’t the Federal Government FUND climate science??? And since the Federal Government gets it’s FUNDING from the American People’s taxes…then the American People have the RIGHT to demand that the government of them, by them and for them….investigate climate scientists who FUDGE their data!
I of course think he’s a spectacular moron. But I personally would love to see subscribers go after the journals that publish misrepresentations of climate science!


You clearly didn’t read to the end and spot the final gotcha.

Fair point.

Paul Westhaver

Next will come the blue plastic bags to put over our heads.
This is what socialists do to their politic enemies.
Think of it. In this “modern age” a powerful socialist government (Obama administration) would use the power of the state to silence his political opponents.
Socialism = democide


Not socialist, totalitarian.

Paul Westhaver

which all happen to be socialist…
See 262,000,000 deaths due to socialist regimes in the last 110 years:

Gloateus Maximus

IMO, that’s a lowball estimate.
Socialism is now and always has been anti-human.


Socialism by definition must either be totalitarian or authoritarian. However almost all authoritarian socialists are re-classed as totalitarian because it is near impossible for one to truly tell the difference between a totalitarian vs an authoritarian.

george e. smith

Socialism came very close to doing in the Pilgrims.
Once that failed, they adopted Capitalism, and the colonies thrived.

Zackly right. But the Pilgrims didn’t leave much of a legacy, probably because of their rocky start. Even being part socialist creates a strong headwind.
The true capitalists were the Puritans. They really left their mark on America, with their thrift, hard work ethic, private property rules, cameraderie — and of course, puritanism — which we still observe with the American social stigma against raunchy sex, drugs (and at the beginning at least, rock ‘n’ roll).

And Satanist.

RE: dbstealey “But the Pilgrims didn’t leave much of a legacy”
How many Americans can look at their family tree, trace it back to the year 1620, and find an ancestor who was aboard the Mayflower?
Estimates range between 20 and 30 million.
Not bad, for a people who “didn’t leave much of a legacy.”
Not that they were not a bunch of Whack-job New-Agers. I have five ancestors who were aboard that leaky boat, and the Brewster bunch were downright embarrassing. Who would name their son “Love”? And what did Love name his son? He named him “Wrestling”.
The fact that such a bunch of idealists, who could barely survive their first winter, resulted in between 20 and 30 Americans, gives me hope. Hope makes me idealistic. Maybe it is in my blood.

Sorry for not being more clear. By ‘legacy’ I meant their effect on the American culture.
The Pilgrims didn’t have much of a cultural impact. The Puritans did.

I see what you are saying. The Puritans certainly did out number everyone else very quickly, with something like 20,000 arriving by 1650. But the Pilgrims were interesting and are a lot of fun to study. If you can find old court records, check them out, because they took each other to court fairly often. Also they multiplied like rabbits, and had huge families, and that gets interesting.
The “Mayflower Compact” is a fairly significant document, I suppose.


Paul Westhaver:
You assert this nonsense

which all happen to be socialist…
See 262,000,000 deaths due to socialist regimes in the last 110 years:

One could make a case that some deaths were by “socialist regimes”; e.g. abortions of ‘undesired’ unborn infants for eugenic reasons in Sweden up to to 1970s. However, the link you present provides no evidence that any of the deaths it lists were by “socialist regimes” although it does list deaths from monarchic, communist, fascist, and etc. regimes.
Indeed, your link makes several statements that deaths it reports were NOT for reasons related in any way to socialism or “socialist regimes”; e.g. it says

I have changed my estimate for colonial democide from 870,000 to an additional 50,000,000.

In summation, the link you provided in support of your untrue assertion actually refutes your untrue assertion.


While they are at it they can prosecute Creationists (priests, ministers, evangelicals, the Pope), pollsters, and every talking head on Fox News.

Michael Jankowski

…and Jon Stewart, everyone on MSNBC, everyone associated with the Huffington Post, NYT, etc…plus folks like Gore, Kerry, and Obama.


Oh heavens no, their the good guys. /sarc
Did I need the /sarc tag above?

Not all Christians are Creationists by any means, if by that you mean they believe it is literally true that the Earth and its inhabitants were created in 7 days.

Why do you say the Pope is a Creationist?


I don’t think so. Knowing climate change to be true and damaging the public while at the same time arguing climate is not happening or is not damaging, is one case.
Arguing for creationism while knowing evolution to be true, has no potential (AFAIK) to damage the public.
Although, one could argue that the less knowledgeable population is a threat to GDP 😉

You need to distinguish between creationists, who believe everything on earth was created in 6 literal days, and people who believe in a creator, who believe that 6 days in the Bible are 6 unspecified periods of time. (Much like when someone says “In my day …” they don’t mean one day but a period of time.)

Evan Jones

You need to distinguish between creationists, who believe everything on earth was created in 6 literal days, and people who believe in a creator, who believe that 6 days in the Bible are 6 unspecified periods of time. (Much like when someone says “In my day …” they don’t mean one day but a period of time.)
“A thousand ages in thy sight are but an evening gone.”

george e. smith

“”””””….. Evan Jones
March 11, 2016 at 4:43 am …..”””””
Evan, the tune is even better than the words.

george e. smith

Inability to provide a rational explanation for some circumstance or observation, does not justify a blind acceptance of a totally irrational explanation.


GTL – you missed it. We have been targeted in these recent few years for our beliefs, despite our incalculable contributions across millenia to science, welfare, health, etc.

Mr Green Genes

TheLastDemocrat – You forgot to include war, torture, genocide etc.


Read the thread again please, I was being sarcastic.

george e. smith

Well the trouble with your thesis, is that the ‘ welfare ‘ you speak of which used to be given freely by free men (of all 57 genders); is now provided only by outright theft, to an expanding population of idle parasites.

Ah, Ed Maibach!
You may be surprised to read that he is no climate scientist, but a social psychologist with a PhD in Communication Research.
He heads up the Center for Climate Change Communication, created in 2007 at George Mason University. According to the Center’s blurb:
Ed joined the George Mason University faculty in 2007 to create the Center for Climate Change Communication. Trained in public health and communication, he has extensive experience as an academic researcher and as a communication and social marketing practitioner in government, business, and the non-profit sector. His research focuses on the broad question of how public engagement in climate change can be expanded and enhanced.
Climate change is the result of human actions and choices. Limiting climate change – and protecting people and ecosystems to the degree possible from unavoidable changes in the climate – will require significant public engagement in the issue so that difficult decisions can be made by members of the public and policy makers. Our center was created to conduct unbiased social science research that will facilitate such public engagement.

The Center has a team of sixteen Faculty Researchers, all at George Mason, plus others from outside.
Amongst its providers of major funding are listed NASA, the National Science Foundation and private foundations such as Grantham Foundation and Rockefeller Family Fund.
This lot can hardly come cheap. We have a situation where NASA and co are pumping millions into the Center, in order to persuade the public of the terrors of global warming, which in turn will help to maintain their own funding, which can then be used to further ramp up the scare.
Much more detail on Ed Maibach and the Center here.


Another psychologist? When did the softest of soft sciences get into the warmunist clown car?

Mark from the Midwest

It doesn’t reach the level of “soft science.” With the exception of some interesting cognitive work, on learning and knowledge representation, most all of psychology is based on a personal hunch, then tested, (poorly), using student subjects, in non-natural settings, with contrived manipulations. If you were to review the content of experimental psych that’s all you would find, a series of equivocal and competing hunches, with some pretty specious evidence behind them. There are no core postulates, there is no unifying theory, they got bupkus.
They had to get into the clown car, because that’s what clowns do.


I stand corrected. The only personal experience I have with psychology is that one of my cousins became a psychologist, and as is often the case, he was pretty much the top candidate in the family to require one.
I do like this guy, of course, so they all can’t be bad:

Phil R

Psycholology – the study of a group of people that don’t need studying by a group of people who do.

Mark from the Midwest

Dr Duarte, plus a few more, try to hold people in the field, (sic), to some standards. There are a few legit scientists in Social Psych that toe a pretty tough line in terms of what it takes to have a finding that has some merit. I will pay my due to those individuals. But the area of study known has psychology started out with some interesting perspectives in the old days, and has been going downhill ever since.

A looong time ago; check out Lewandowsky and John Cook and Yale and Harvard, then there’s Obama’s Sept. 15, 2015 EO to use psychological warfare against US citizens. We’re spending billions brainwashing the public.

george e. smith

Well of my high school graduating class of 23 persons (only two genders back then), the one person most likely to have been voted the least likely to succeed, after becoming a school teacher, became a behavioral psychologist.
He has contributed far more to humanity than the rest of the entire graduating class put together, including me. He and his every bit equally credentialed spouse; now both retired, are very likely the world’s leading authority in their specialty. Their special area of expertise is not that exotic, but it infests every community of every size in America, and likely elsewhere as well.
So they had a virtual avalanche of study individuals; so it is not surprising that they developed very affordable remedial processes that can be canned and delivered to any community of any size (CDC is doing just that).
They had many fellow psychologist colleagues, who chose to study extremely weird and extremely rare pestilences, because there were no papers in that field. If you find one case in 350,000 individuals, then you never find enough commonality to have any idea about cause or treatment or cure, because you have no data, but you do have worthless research papers.
So not all of psychology is squishy soft.
Psychiatry is another matter. Ricky Ricardo, referred to those practitioners, as P-sick-ee-atrists; with the accent on the sick. And they truly are sick, and like true professionals, they don’t have a job, they have a practice.
And they practice on their victims, excuse me, that’s patients. And they aren’t very good at it, so like all professionals, they carry malpractice insurance to CTA for when they screw up. And they get laws passed to prevent others from practicing the same operation they are running. They use the secrecy of the practitioner patient exclusions to prevent anyone from discovering their scams.
So no professional would ever give you a money back guarantee. And why would they even attempt to solve your problem, even if that were possible, because that will just terminate their income stream.
There aren’t enough fleas on all the camels in Arabia to suitably infest the armpits of all of the modern day professional practitioners.

Nah can’t be … youd be ancient.

Well researched as usual. Thanks
Which begs the question …. why George Mason University ?
Who are they connected to ?
The good doctors at GMU didn’t wake up one day and decide that they are going to pen this letter. That would be considered uncommon communications strategy.
Who gave them the mission assignment ?

John Harmsworth

I wondered about his credentials. Some guy who needs to take his shoes off to count past 10 thinks he knows enough about climate thermodynamics to send people before the climate courts. Burnt at the stake after conviction I suppose. He should be fired for cause and sent to work in the coal mines.

Krudd Gillard of the Commondebt of Australia

Climate Change Communication! They have money for that?


Yes you have to pay for propaganda, it aint cheap


Meanwhile, the evil Russians are allowing us to come and go from the space station thanks to NASA’s internal collapse into uselessness.

Nice call out Paul!


He is a propagandist.


It’s the Jimmy Hoffa treatment.

UK Sceptic

Stuff like this, unless nipped in the bud, can only end badly. Socialism is anathema to civilization.


Socialism is anathema to civilization.

Try sell that in Sweden, where many are (not most) skeptics. Overly broad generalizations are usually misleading.

Mark from the Midwest

Sweden is not a socialist paradise, in fact it’s not doing well at all these days. Workforce participation has been trending down among young adults for 20 years, and sooner or later that sort of thing catches up to a country.


Sweden is a slowly dying society
If it was not for immigrants (svart hade) it would have already collapsed under its own weight


@Mark from the Midwest and Janus
It is not totalitarian which I believe is what UK Skeptic is implying about socialism in general.
All economic models can be abused, Cuba’s socialism is actually totalitarian, Argentina’s capitalism has become corporatism. Call them what they are, not what they falsely claim to be.


Is Sweden Socialist?
“Sweden has always been a solid market economy”, states the present right-wing government on its website. And that is certainly true. Sweden has never been a socialist society – based on public ownership of production, workers’ control and management, social equality and a democratic plan of production. Neither has Sweden been a ‘mixed economy’ or provided a ‘third way’ – an alternative to both capitalism and socialism, if such a thing were possible.


Most western economies are in fact hybrids, and your are correct that Sweden would not fit the Marxist definition of Socialist. While it seems that socialism too easily morphs to totalitarianism, one of my strongest objections to socialism, it is not correct to say socialism = totalitarianism.


(I ought to have been more clear, none of that text is me “speaking”, I copied it from the Socialistworld site)
“While it seems that socialism too easily morphs to totalitarianism, one of my strongest objections to socialism, it is not correct to say socialism = totalitarianism.”
I can agree, but the lack of examples that didn’t slip into totalitarian states renders the distinction somewhat hollow, it seems to me. I suspect the necessary concentration of power in the hands of officials/bureaucrats for true Socialism, may be too strong a temptation trap for human societies to overcome, rendering the distinction somewhat academic in reality-land . .


John Knight,
The Castro brothers like to call themselves and Cuba Socialist. It implies they are benevolent rulers. They are neither, they are totalitarians and we should call them what they are; Murderous brutes who will do anything to maintain their absolute control over Cuba and it’s people.
I do not disagree with your reply except that the distinction seems important to me.

Evan Jones

Socialism can (partially) succeed if A, B, and C are deciding what A,B &C will do for A, B, C and D. But not if it is A&B deciding what C will do for D.


@ Evan Jones
I believe some socialist constructs can work within a capitalist society such as free primary education in the US (K-12) and universal health care in some western countries (which in reality becomes rationed health care). However as John Knight said above “the lack of examples that didn’t slip into totalitarian states” makes me doubt its viability as an economic/political system.
@ Mark
Finland has a thriving private sector and is not fully socialist. It is a hybrid.


“The Castro brothers like to call themselves and Cuba Socialist. It implies they are benevolent rulers.”
Not me it doesn’t . . any more than someone callijng themselves a capitalist implies they are benevolent . .
“They are neither, they are totalitarians and we should call them what they are; Murderous brutes who will do anything to maintain their absolute control over Cuba and it’s people.”
Are you thinking/claiming socialists cannot be totalitarians? Why in the world couldn’t they be?
From the Webter’s
~Simple Definition of socialism
: a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies~
Looks to me like an arrangement rather conducive to totalitarianism . . I see no reason at all to think “Murderous brutes who will do anything to maintain their absolute control” would not favor socialism.
I don’t think all socialists are totalitarians, if that’s what you’re trying to express . . I just think that in the real world, Socialism sort of sets a stage that totalitarians can relatively easily exploit, and hence the morphing problem you spoke of.


Untrue, forced socialism doesn’t work, a socialist society does.
Finland, far above the rest of you on OECD, as is Sweden with the US in and around Turkey.
Access to universal healthcare and education for all isn’t a bad thing you know.
When socialism is about society and not ideology it works.
Problem is, socialism is always hijacked for other agendas. Like the crackpots in Venezuela where making items retail “human rights”, like toilet roll and bottles of water, making them cost literally nothing, stops stores selling them thus making them almost impossible to get.


There are socialists and then there are communists pretending to be socialists.. and right wing nuts pretending to be socialists, like the Nazis for example.

Phil R

You can’t have a (truly) socialist society without forced socialism. And no, socialism is not about society, it IS an ideology.


@Phil R

You can’t have a (truly) socialist society without forced socialism.

If it is forced it is totalitarianism.

Henry Galt

“There’s material here that will make their fingernails sweat.”


“scary enough to make you swallow your gum?”


As they might say across the pond, Rather, yes?

RICO charges are used for the mafia. These 20 so called scientists trying to bring RICO charges against skeptical top quality scientists is the real crime here. I would ask, why are these 20 scientists so scared to learn that there is not global warming as they thought? Aren’t they interested to know that the National Geographic admitted to photo shopping the polar bears on melting ice?Why are they needing to treat real scientists like Mafia?

Janice Moore

Good point, Dr. Graves, the tactic reeks of desperation. Lol, R1CO requires an underlying crime be committed (by the enterprise of the rackateers). No wonder Lynch’s Justice Dept. said, “Here. YOU take it,” to the F.B.I.. There is no crime to prosecute. So, apparently intimidation and harassment and, “Ooooo, watch out, Exxon, waaaaatch out! Weeee are going to get yooooooou………… somehow…… how? ….. hm.”

Passed in 1970, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) is a federal law designed to combat organized crime in the United States. It allows prosecution and civil penalties for racketeering activity performed as part of an ongoing criminal enterprise. … , section 1503 (relating to obstruction of justice), section 1510 (relating to obstruction of criminal investigations), section 1511 (relating to the obstruction of State or local law enforcement), section 1512 (relating to tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant),
It might stretch enough to backfire on them, several of the offenses sort of sounds like what they do regularly; an activist judge might accept those arguments against the warmists.

This isn’t RICO, it’s political persecution by a kangaroo court for dissent against government policy. The US is currently a fascist state. Wake up! – a US Supreme Court judge was recently murdered due to his opposition to Obama’s climate policy, The government’s policy has no more need to accurately represent science than Vladimir Lysenko’s did. Two members of the Hammond family in Burns, Oregon are in federal prison on NDAA terrorism charges for setting a backfire on their own land to stop an out-of-control BLM fire, and those who support them, legal representatives and financial supporters and journalists and elected officials, including law enforcement representatives, are also liable for terrorism charges. Protection of the environment has been used to designate wildlife refuges and biopreserves that have been created on private land as a means of seizing it and enabling mining by foreign nationals. This is an afactual political agenda conducted by Illuminati satanist thugs, and law isn’t relevant. This is a political purge and we’re not helping its victims by intentional ignorance and a pretense that this is an issue related to either science or law. It’s very unfortunate that the scientific community has ostracized its own members, Tim Ball and Eric Karlstrom, http://www.naturalclimatechangedotus /for example, who are capable of viewing this in its appropriate political context.

Janice Moore

A. {E. Maibach} What’s climate denial? Good question.
Activities that are intentionally misrepresenting what is known to be true about climate change so as to convince people that climate change is not, in fact, a reality.

LOL. Here’s “what is known to be true:”
1. CO2-driven climate models = failed; unskilled; unfit-for-purpose.
2. Human CO2 emissions UP. Warming STOPPED.
3. AGWers have not yet made even a prima facie case for their conjecture that human CO2 emissions cause “climate change,” much less presented enough evidence to shift the burden of proof to the science realists to defend the null hypothesis that natural drivers overwhelmingly control the climate of the earth.
Exxon’s legal team’s hardest task will be stifling their laughter during depositions and the like.
Above RICO (whatever that is, shrug, we have no idea, but Exxon, et. al. is guilty!) frivolity brought to you by….. THE CLIMATE CLOWNS! (mostly of George Mason University, but some from other places, we’re not sure where….. Trenberth thinks maybe they live in the deep ocean when they’re not up summering at the North Pole).


Well, it is about A knowing X to be true, and X being (potentially) damaging to the public, while at the same time A is trying to convince the public X not to be true, to obfuscate X, or to point at Y (etcetc.), simply to be able to profit from the status quo (i.e. not doing anything about X). Some people call this “deception”.

Janice Moore

Wagen: you need to go look up the meaning of the word “know.”


If a court case did proceed against the energy companies or individuals, this would cause the AGW group to actually proove their claims in fullness without question. As there claims are simply theory and still unsubstantiated, any court case would be extremely risky for their cause as they would be found wanting. That is the case in a democracy, however those days appear to be fading fast.


Where is ristvan when you need him?
My understanding is that the courts have ruled time and again that they are inexpert in the field and unable to evaluate scientific claims. Therefor they rely on impartial expert opinion. In this case, that might be the EPA, which is deemed “expert”. EPA comes trotting in with their Endangerment Finding, and it is all over for the skeptic case.
Could get ugly.

Janice Moore

Please forgive my intruding (when you wanted Rud Istvan, I mean), but to give you a bit of an answer:
While, yes, the court will defer to the agency’s presumed expertise, however…
potential plaintiffs (against EPA) have, even now, a cause of action in arguing that the Clean Air Act’s and the Administrative Procedure Act’s requirement that all EPA “rulemaking” (as the CO2 Endangerment Ruling was) have a “rational basis” requires that the EPA consider the best available science. The EPA violated this requirement by excluding from its decision-making almost ALL the “best science” about human CO2 in its finding it to be an “endangerment.” The D.C. Circuit Court’s rulings against those who tried to force the EPA to consider that science made this possible. Basically, the Supreme Court of the United States (not all the members, but the majority) let the EPA get away with a NOT-rational basis rulemaking. That is, the law and the facts were (and are) against the EPA, but, liberal-leaning judges were far too deferent to the EPA and its pro-AGW policy mission.
Conclusion: Fight on! The facts and the law are on the side of the science realists! Yes, ideologically-driven justices may, in the end, thwart the attempt, but it is worth trying. And BETTER YET, Congress needs to step up to the plate and re-write the Clean Air Act and / or (at least) pass specific legislation that negates the CO2 “endangerment” finding. While the Executive staffs the agency and sets its policy, Congress still has the ultimate control of the EPA.

Just got here. EPA would not be an expert witness. Maybe one of its ‘scientists’. The other side would use experts like those at Cruz’ data or dogma hearing. Curry, Christy, (lindzen…) The court difference from a hearing is in evidence standards and cross examination. For example when Tetley pulled the ‘I’m just a sailor but that does not looklike a pause’ comment on the NOAA graph in Cruz hearing, he was pointing to the new Karlized version. On cross, I would pull out the 2014 version (showing a pause), and ask Tetley how it got changed. That leads either himmor me directly to Smiths NOAA investigation based on whistleblowers, and NOAA’s contempt of congress for failing to comply with a lawful subpoeona… And the other sides case slowly collapses.
NY AG announced an Exxon investigation a la Sen Whitehouse’s desire. That will be fun ifmit goes anywhere beyond Schneiderman’s political grandstanding, because warmunists took old Exxon stuff out of context (already exposed elsewhere) and Exxon can afford good lawyers.
Rep. Smith has referred his Shukla findings to the NSF for ‘appropriate legal actions’. That probably means an indictment. Most recent similar case was a Penn State prof who misused NIH grant funds (similar strictures to NSF). 41 months in federal prison plus $640k restitution.
Horner’s FOI goes after the RICO 20 letter motivations and backing. It was that letter that got Shukla examined to expose his clear financial wrongdoing. Multiple related threads to the saga. This interesting post starts to reveal one of them


Thanks, Janice, ristvan.
Always good to get your takes on things.

Janice Moore

To clarify: my comment was addressing TonyL’s reply based on kiwikid’s comment:

If a court case did proceed against the energy companies …

and assuming that the EPA’s “endangerment” ruling would be used by the R1CO gang to justify its lawsuit. That the EPA’s ruling was not “rational basis” could be an issue raised by the defense.
And I’m out of here, now that I see that TonyL’s requested legal expert is here. Sorry for the intrusion, TonyL. I thought, perhaps, Mr. Istvan might be away for quite some time.

Janice Moore

Well, Tony! Just read your generous response. Thanks! 🙂

Jean Paul Zodeaux

The courts generally rely upon the Daubert standard – although some states still rely upon the more dated Frye standard – in determining the admissibility of expert testimony. The Dubert standard references a trilogy of SCOTUS rulings – Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals, General Electric Co. v. Joiner, and Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael – that made the judge the gatekeeper of what was or was not admissible in terms of expert testimony, and requires that the judge must make sure the expert testimony is relevant and and rests upon reliable foundation, in order for a conclusion to be held as scientific knowledge the advocate must demonstrate that it is from scientific methodology, which the courts have defined as: Hypothesis, experiments that test the theory and either demonstrate or falsify the hypothesis and provides a nondispositive, nonexclusive, flexible set of general observations.
I would suggest that if the EPA is able to run roughshod over that process it will be due to weak advocacy from the plaintiff’s – or in the cases where the EPA is the plaintiff, the defendant. For years government agencies were able to use the pseudoscience of forensic science as an unquestionable source of scientific knowledge. To be sure, the NAS a few years back released a scathing report on the problems with forensic science, but just as sure was that defense attorneys started pushing back and challenging that sacred cow so that today forensic science is finally and rightfully being challenged.
Strong attorneys for the skeptics of AGW can prevent a bullying EPA from owning the judicial system.

The use of the Daubert standard has become muddied by the corrupt nature of the peer review process. Much of daubert in its practical observation depends on the best available science which then points towards peer review. As this webpage aptly discusses, much of the raw data for competent peer review has been held hostage and many scientists are getting away with spurious claims.
The Daubert system is suffering from a heavy dose of deer in the headlights paralysis. It’s a befuddling mess.

It already is ugly.
The problem developed when lawyers discovered they could scare people into “settling” lawsuits before things came to a true trial. A true trial is always better. Either Truth is seen, or the denial of Truth becomes so blatant that a sort of war is publicized.

That would be great except that it’s a witch hunt and that anybody they call a witch is a witch regardless of the facts. I’m certain which ever court this lands up in, it will be in favor of CAGW. Otherwise the DOJ would not even consider it. Or even referring it to the FBI.
Of course things may not turn out they way they think either.

Things will not “work out the way they think”.
I am afraid, Rishrac, that you give too much credit to the powers of political correctness. When such so-called “correctness” is incorrect, it is a structure engineered on sand and bound to fail.
Stand by the Truth and the Truth will stand by you.

The bottom line is for CAGW to eliminate a lot of us. If I’m right and it gets colder, it’ll be a huge problem, to which, nobody has any solutions. And that is the solution. Somebody knows in much greater detail about climate than the CAGW people. The problem is, who gets eliminated. There was book about who gets what. I belong to this club. When it’s good, me first. When it’s bad, you first.

Evil always thinks it is smarter than good. It isn’t. Even when evil manages to gain absolute power, it manages to make such a complete mess of things that it turns to good out of desperation.
Evil is like the playground bully who looks around and sees the playground is empty; everyone is sick of him and has gone home.
Evil’s solution is always a sickening “final solution” that only benefits a few, while hurting or destroying many.
Good, on the other hand, faces a crisis with a sort of unselfish team-spirit, and achieve the impossible. The CAGW people actually talk about such sacrifice-for-humanity, but when you look at them it is painfully obvious they talk the talk but don’t walk the walk, and they are all about greed.


If a court case did proceed against the energy companies or individuals, this would cause the AGW group to actually prove their claims in fullness without question.
In theory, yes. In reality we would have a situation where matters of science were to be decided by who has the ‘right’ lawyer. Charm the jury and pretty much anything then becomes ‘truth’.
“Bose–Einstein condensate” validated by slick suit? Polar Bear numbers decided by the most prominent cup size?
The current system (peer review in the journals/internet…) is far from perfect but moving it all to a court based system is absolute madness. Science by popularity in a pantomime just cannot work.

It is sad that you see our courts as “popularity in a pantomime”. It is sad that I see the system of peer review as being even worse.
What is needed is ethics and honesty.
In order to get that we need people to demand that.


Kiwikid, That depends on the judge or justices. The warmistas may not may be asked to prove anything, after all it’s stettled science. Would a judge expect a “real” scientist to prove there is gravity? Suppose this makes it to SCOTUS after Billary has added a “progressive” ninth justice.

Bill Powers

Wasn’t it the same Loretta Lynch who suggested last week that, in the event the FBI recommends bringing charges against Hillary Clinton, that doesn’t necessarily mean that the Justice Department will be required to do so?
Seems that law and order is not applied evenly anymore. No right or wrong. Just right and wrong political parties. The Science community could prove that man does not influence the climate on earth and that would not stop the left from implementing taxes, fees and inflationary regulations to control our activity. This is the very definition of Totalitarianism.

Alan Robertson

It’s probably always been this way. Human nature hasn’t changed. We’re just more aware of incidents, due to the dissemination of information on the internet.

BP, as posted over at CE on presidents thread 2, my point 5 on the Clinton email server thing may give you some comfort. A number of judges and federal prosecutors who know FBI director Comey well have said and written that if the FBI recommends prosecution and Lynch demurs, he is such an independent straight shooter that he would resign and go public with the reasons. Analogous to Watergate’s Saturday Night Massacre. Would lead to similar end results for Clinton as did for Nixon.

Bill Powers

Point taken, ristvan, but never forget you need an unbiased Primary Media for the necessary firework display to be seen by Joe and Jane (otherwise preoccupied) American ala “I am not a crook” Nixon. If the noise only comes from Fox News and talk radio it will be brushed aside as simply another Vast Right Wing conspiracy. I am not saying the media types like ABNBCBS will abdicate their responsibility, but they know they have the power to anoint Hillary and elevate her to the throne.


The question about the Cook et al consensus figure got off track on p42. The original Cook et al survey looked at about 12,000 abstracts not 12. Their own data on the SkS site shows that only 0.5% take the view that man is mainly responsible. This falls to 0.3% when you re-read the abstracts. Legates et al pointed this out.
I think the answer refers to the later paper that analysed only the existing “97%” literature not the original analysis of abstracts.

” Their own data on the SkS site shows that only 0.5% take the view that man is mainly responsible. This falls to 0.3% when you re-read the abstracts. Legates et al pointed this out.”
A great point. The general public believes in a “97% consensus” because the NWO Illuminati controls the media. We should expect the same misrepresentation in the persecution of the scientists involved in this RICO-based purge.

Pat Frank

I hope those excerpts do not represent the most acute questioning, because they don’t get anywhere near the heart of the matter.

Janice Moore

I think that, Dr. Frank, is because the deposition was taken “… in the Virginia Freedom of Information Act suit Horner et al. v. George Mason University.” That is, Horner’s questions were mainly aimed at a narrower goal: convincing a judge that the R1CO gang’s motives and plans make the gang’s communications public information which should be produced.
Horner also seems to be trying to get some admissions for: 1) the underlying premise (that AGW is false science); and 2) which support the public’s right to investigate for prosecuting the climate data twisters such as Thomas K@rl who have fr@udlently adjusted data to show a false warming trend (i.e., getting the witness to answer what Horner needed by mixing his Q’s in with ingratiating, enemy-friendly, questions about UAH “if THEY did it…”).

“If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is, because
everything would be what it isn’t. And contrarywise, what is, it wouldn’t be. And what it wouldn’t
be, it would. You see?” — Alice in Wonderland, Lewis Carroll

Bruce Cobb

Kudos to the Climate Liars for paving the way to their own prosecution.

Bob Denby

Be reminded that this isn’t about climate control, it’s about advancing the war on Capitalism. The advocates obviously know how ephemeral their alleged evidence is and are desperate to deal heavily with those who can rationally test it before their advocacy collapses. Administration change is crucial!!

This is a capitalist agenda disguised as socialism. It was created by the Rothschilds and Rockefellers and Wall Street bankers, starting with David Rockefeller’s Club of Rome.


Don’t discount the contribution of the junior senator from Rhode Island, Sheldon Whitehouse, in this cock-up. He alone is advocating denying the first and fifth amendment protections of US citizens in order to pursue his moronic agenda. The first amendment exists specifically to prevent the government from pre-silencing any citizen on any subject – that is, to prevent them from speaking out. That man needs to spend some time in a federal prison for what he’s doing.

David L. Hagen

Obama’s Carbon Admission: ‘I Have the World’s Largest Carbon Footprint’

(Early in his first term, still unaccustomed to the massive military operation it takes to move a president from one place to another, he noted ruefully to aides, “I have the world’s largest carbon footprint.”) . . .
As of January last year, the president was approaching 450,000 miles of international travel during his administration.

aka “Do what I tell you, NOT what I do!”


Obama, being such a crusader on this issue, shoud try and run the Whitehouse completely with solar or wind power.

David L. Hagen

Would that be sufficient to reliably run his Blackberry and teleprompter?

Peter Woram

This is one of the most interesting pieces I’ve seen on WUWT in a while. The transcript is extremely telling. It was so easy to see that Maibach was squirming in his seat for the selected portion of the transcript. The RICO-20 should have looked before they leaped. The suite is a double edge sword that’s going to cut both ways.


Basically the argument seems to be “We know what we know, a priori. There is no possibility that we could be wrong. Anybody who reports ‘evidence’ that does not support what we know should be investigated for possible criminal behavior.”


The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, commonly referred to as the RICO Act or simply RICO, is a United States federal law that provides for extended criminal penalties and a civil cause of action for acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization.

Greg Cavanagh

So, if Exxon Mobil is not an “ongoing criminal organisation”, does RICO have any legs at all?
It seems very odd that the judge forwarded the complain to the FBI if this is the correct meaning of RICO.


@ Greg Cavanagh
I am not an attorney so take my opinion with a grain of salt.
RICO was intended for the prosecution of organized crime families. Over the years aggressive prosecutors have expanded that meaning to a much narrower definition of nearly any organized criminal enterprise. The issue then becomes whether Exxon Mobile had some criminal intent in its “global warming” research.
IMO, based on prior posts on WUWT I doubt that is true, but the Obama justice department has been shown be very unscrupulous and aggressive in the pursuit of Administration policy. An administration that would attempt to usurp legislative authority with executive orders is capable of anything.

Can RICO be applied to these academics who are calling for RICO? Can the group be expanded to include for example Gavin Schmidt who may be intentionally phonying up NOAA’s temperature dataset?


“Q..deceive the public relating to data which showed an increase in global temperatures over time, that would merit investigation? A. It would be — I suppose it depends on who it is.”
It depends on who it is?!
Did this Professor Edward Maibach actually say that, really?!…… Holy Shh…..

Janice Moore

Glad you emphasized that, klem — it popped out at me, too.

… deceive the public … it depends on who it is.</blockquote
"…some animals… ."
It made a slight smile play on my lips, though, for it shows that we are dealing with an inexperienced or untalented bunch, here (given that he is a "co-ring leader"). And that is a good thing.

Janice Moore

Yeah… I meant to write, addressing an AGWer, “… it depends on who it is,” blockhead. lololol
D’oh! 🙂

You’re right; if there was any semblance of truth or justice involved in this purge, Maibach destroyed Lynch’s case.
“It was not my intention to doubt that, the Doctrines of the Illuminati, and principles of Jacobinism had not spread in the United States. On the contrary, no one is more truly satisfied of this fact than I am. The idea that I meant to convey, was, that I did not believe that the Lodges of Free Masons in this Country had, as Societies, endeavoured to propagate the diabolical tenets of the first, or pernicious principles of the latter (if they are susceptible of separation). That Individuals of them may have done it, or that the founder, or instrument employed to found, the Democratic Societies in the United States, may have had these objects; and actually had a separation of the People from their Government in view, is too evident to be questioned.” (George Washington, shortly before he died, read John Robison’s book Proofs of a Conspiracy and immediately expressed his belief to the preacher who had sent it to him, that the designs of the Illuminati were infecting our country. Letter to Reverend G. W. Snyder, Writings of George Washington, p 518-519.)


This is a scaled down version of how things work in command and control countries. They call it PUTIN in Russia and CASTRO elsewhere.

Question: Can RICO be applied to people who attempt to “hide the decline”? Just asking.

Greg Cavanagh

Probably not, it wasn’t data tampering, just data hiding. The data was there in plain site, it just wasn’t obvious that it represented two different data types.
It’s the temperature adjusters who should be very very worried about this line of questioning.

Not really. As distasteful as it is there are no approved standard methods for temperature adjustments to raw data so the accused get to claim best professional judgement.
Unethical and shoddy and maybe even profitable for some but not illegal. They set it up nicely that they get to accuse without being accused.

4 eyes

Not a word about the anthropogenic component of climate change, just climate change. There’s a whole discussion not even mentioned. I presume that would come next.

Some observations re. DOJ investigation of climate deniers, 3/10/2016.
(1) Socialism is to statism as capitalism is to individualism. Once a state begins to regulate any enterprise for the good of the state, individuals will immediately work around the law for individual gain. Hence, another round of laws, continuing, ad nauseam, until not a liberty remains.
(2) Re TonyL @ 11:5o am: The US Government has taken a stand on what constitutes science, endorsing four of Popper’s five criteria (four intersubjective criteria plus falsification), and reversing a fifth. (Reversed was Popper’s requirement that scientific models take into account their social consequences. Even the High Court could see through that because it ran contrary to authority reserved to the trier of fact.) Daubert v. Merrell Dow, 509 U.S. 579, 1993. Popper created Post Modern Science (PMS) by deconstruction Modern Science (MS), which suited those sucking on the public teat just fine. In academia, it’s publish or perish; in industry, it’s predict or perish.
(3) IPCC-type climatology is an admitted product of PMS. E.g., IPCC, AR4, §2.9.1 Uncertainties in Radiative Forcing, p. 200; Technical Summary, ¶TS.1 Introduction, p.21
(4) Political correctness. Something is politically correct just in case it is not correct any other way. Conformity to academic, publish or perish science is political correctness.
(5) The problem with enforcing political correctness is not in the idea judged but in the enforcement. Its voice is the we in what are we going to do about it?
(6) As long as DOJ has some free time to investigate things, it might focus on the conspiracy that converted Modern Science into PMS for tenure and government grants. It’s the cancer of for-profit universities, nourished by the student-loan racket. DOJ could be well on the way to cleaning house not just on AGW (climate change in PC), but on the ignorance and corruption that spawned it.

Re. William McClenney, 3/10/2016 @ 11:49 am.
“If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn’t. And contrarywise, what is, it wouldn’t be. And what it wouldn’t be, it would. You see?” — Alice in Wonderland, Lewis Carroll
Carroll (1866), it would seem, anticipated Wittgenstein Tractatus (1922) by 56 years. Unfortunately, the passage is not in the book. It’s Alice talking to her cat, dialog from the 1951 animated Disney film. Wikipedia. The movie also misspelled Carroll, chintzing on one L. IMDB.
Maybe DOJ could look into all that for us, too.

For the mere hint of her willingness to entertain discussion about how to suppress the speech of citizen, the AG should be impeached.

I agree – I suggest that the AG’s actions to date constitute an impeachable offence.
Next question: Who is going to bell the cat?

As to climate change. The climate is always changing. We only have to look at why the quaint cliff dwellings at Mesa Verde were abandoned by the indigenous peoples of the area in order to see climate change hundreds of years ago. Further back we only have to notice the ruins left by people attempting to raise crops on Greenland to see the climate changed. And some 15,000 years ago, the area now occupied by the President’s own favorite city, Chicago, was under about 1000 feet of solid glacial ice due to climate change.
I am still waiting for those who insist that human activity is causing meaningful changes to the climate to show what the average climate is, and whether our present climate is below or above this average. But alas, there appears to be no appetite for this key metric.
This should not come as a surprise especially when it is recalled that the vast majority of demands, suggestions and recommendations that accompany what passes for climate science all rapidly converge on statism, collectivism and the destruction of personal liberal and the resulting suppression of prosperity. It is a shame that so many otherwise brilliant and supposedly secular people are so duped away from true science by the oldest religion in human experience, gaia worship.

Gunga Din

Perhaps it’s already been said but, if the raw (unadjusted) data and the “methods” were freely made available to the public and questioning scientist (What other kind should there be?) then there’s no need for the “Big Stick” of Government to get involved….unless it’s all about the politics.


After experiencing the machinations of this administration I doubt any ‘justice’ will be served that doesn’t suite their agenda. “Proof” and “facts” seem to be in the eye of the beholder and supported by the MSM to maintain a permanently duped populace. I’ll never get over them declaring CO2 a pollutant and getting away with it.


Q. So climate denial broadly bothers you then?
A. Mischaracterization of the truth specifically intended to undermine the public’s well-being, yes, typically does bother me.
Q. Can you give me an example of these misrepresentations by ExxonMobil or others?
A. No, not off the top of my head.

David A

Yes Don, that leaped out at me as well.

It is interesting that the use of the true scientific principals such as observations, experimentation and other empirical forms of science have been thrown out the window and now these bureaucrats want to file charges under the RICO statue on scientist for speaking out when the findings do not concur with the computer models. Computer modeling isn’t a reliable tool in short term weather forecasting, much less in any long term studies in climatology. This should prove interesting, especially if they decide to target an oil company… it will be tied up in court for decades.

Spot on – I hope it happens.
Maybe that court case could help reinstate scientific integrity.


“If they knowingly deceived the public by hiding an increase in temperatures, does that also warrant investigation? That’s my question. … A. It does.”
What about UHI effects in sensor placement being knowingly sited near hot urban objects, and scientists and forecasters allowing such misleading data to stand uncorrected for decades, and misusing it to represent a fake global warming trend?
What about BOM interpolating from disparate sites a regional temp and deliberately excising older records with don’t sit well with their partial data contrivances, and concocting a misleading database of lower temp ‘records’, so they can keep falsely claiming, “The Hottest Evah!” of this and that alleged temp ‘record’ being broken … to deliberately deceive … when there has barely been for 18 years any global temp trend change?
When are they going to ‘do time’ for concerted deception to harm the public interest and money allocation and distort all policy discussions with irrelevant ‘climate’ (weather!) change piffle?
Pot –> Kettle –> Black –> Hypocrites


Alan Alda at his press conference in Oz reckons we need to trust what scientists say ,I say bullshite !

Shorter RICO20 letter:
“Someone disagrees with me. That should be illegal.”

Precisely; the sole relevant statement justifying the persecution of dissidents in a fascist, totalitarian NWO regime.

The science is settled. Continued debate over CAGW is an affront to the well being of society and a distraction from a brave new energy future. Your value system rooted in elevating the freedom of the individual above the needs of society does not allow you to see our vision for a better future.
AhhhHmmmm … yup, now you know. You’ve been warned and will not be treated well when the new society flourishes.
/sarc … snippet from a recent real life encounter.

SLAPP writ Federal.
“…Attorney General Loretta Lynch acknowledged internal discussions about possible Department of Justice racketeering investigations into political opponents for “forestall America’s response to climate change” — that is, political speech, in opposition to a political agenda….”


Called my Representative and asked him to go after her for malfeasance. Would urge others to do the same. This needs to stop.

President Hillary promises to get to the bottom of Area 51 and space aliens.
Now there is an investigation for you.

Everything you need to know about Mr. Maibach you can see in his response to this question (truncated):
Q. If someone were to hide or misrepresent or deceive the public relating to data which showed an increase in global temperatures over time, that would merit investigation?
A. It would be — I suppose it depends on who it is…
How can hiding or misrepresenting anything be OK “depending on who it is”? I can almost see him squirming in his seat as he starts backing away from this question.

But but our adjustments are well within norms of the industry practice. We used our most sophisticated computer run filters to create an unbiased representation of the consistently ocurring anomalies. We couldn’t figure out why it kept giving those readings that were inconsistent with our conclusions.
When we were done we submitted the methods used for adjustment to the IPCC working group and they concurred.

David S

The warmists are creating the precedent to put their high priests into jail. I know which side of the debate is misleading the American public.

Q. So what you’re telling me is, while you’re not aware of the specifics of RICO and how the law works, you think that what ExxonMobil specifically was doing was troubling and you wanted that stopped?
A. Correct.
Holy Moses, can you imagine a professor who put together a letter calling for RICO investigations “without being aware of the specifics of RICO and how the law works!”
What kind of a professor puts together, or sign, such a letter – without understanding the meaning of it.
George Mason University is one of the last universities I will let my kids go to study.

They left bread crumbs to follow. GMU profs didn’t pen that letter or even come up with the idea. Follow the crumbs. Lots of emails and telephone records in that little group.
I’d like to know who originated the idea.

“It seems likely therefore that the organizer Jagadish Shukla worked with Whitehouse, possibly even on Whitehouse’s behalf, to organize colleagues in support of investigation or prosecution,” Chris Horner, an attorney with CEI, told TheDCNF.”

Re: U.S. Attorney General Lynch Looks Into Prosecuting ‘Climate Change Deniers’
I suggest that one’s predictive track record is perhaps the best objective measure of one’s scientific competence.
The IPCC and the global warming alarmists have a negative predictive track record, because none of the alarmists’ scary predictions of runaway global warming, wilder weather, climate refugees, or countless other warming-caused disasters have materialized.
Based on its negative predictive track record, the IPCC and the warmist camp have NO scientific credibility.
It is truly remarkable that anyone with such a total lack of credibility would consider trying to bully anyone else.
I suggest that standing up to bullies is the most effective way to deal with them. As discussed previously, I propose a “Civil RICO” (or similar) lawsuit in the USA against the leaders of the global warming alarmist camp AND their institutions.
I suggest that there have been many parties in the USA that have been financially damaged by global warming alarmism.
There is an interesting field of US law that employs the RICO (anti-racketeering) statutes to provide treble (triple) damages in civil cases. That might be a suitable approach.
“Despite congressional attempts to limit the scope of civil RICO, only one major area of law has been removed from the RICO Act. The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.A. § 77 et seq.) eliminated liability for RICO claims based on securities Fraud, unless the defendant has already been criminally convicted of securities fraud. The act thus removed the threat of treble (triple) damages in such cases. Congress concluded that federal securities laws generally provide adequate remedies for victims of securities fraud. Therefore, it was unnecessary and unfair to expose defendants in securities cases to the threat of treble damages and other extraordinary remedies provided by the RICO Act.
Critics of the RICO Act applaud this congressional action but argue that the same reasoning can and should be applied to other areas of Civil Law. These critics maintain that the act’s broad scope has given plaintiffs an unfair advantage in civil litigation.
One criticism of civil RICO is that no criminal convictions are necessary to win a civil case under the act. The plaintiff need only show, by a Preponderance of Evidence, that it is more likely than not that the ongoing criminal enterprise occurred. As a result RICO has been used in all types of civil cases to allege wrongdoing. By contrast, a criminal RICO case must be proved Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.
In addition, the judge and jury in a criminal RICO case are prohibited from drawing an adverse inference from a defendant’s invocation of the Fifth Amendment Privilege against Self-Incrimination. No such ban exists, however, in a civil RICO case. Critics contend that it is unfair for a party in a civil RICO case who has concerns about potential criminal liability to be forced to waive his or her Fifth Amendment privilege in order to mount an effective defense in the civil action. Once testimony is given in the civil case, the party has effectively waived the privilege against Self-Incrimination, and the testimony may be used in a subsequent criminal prosecution. Critics contend that the RICO Act should be amended to stay (delay) a civil RICO proceeding until a criminal RICO proceeding has been concluded.
The critics of civil RICO also believe that its use has given plaintiffs an unfair tool that often serves to coerce a party to settle out of fear of a treble damages award. These critics believe that no civil RICO action should be allowed unless the party has been convicted under criminal RICO.”
[end of excerpt]
I suggest the Climategate emails could provide the necessary evidence of a criminal conspiracy to defraud the public, through fraudulent misallocation of government-funded research monies, and wind and solar power schemes that were forced upon consumers and which were incapable of providing economical new energy to the electric power grid due to intermittency of supply.

Two decades ago, the question was:
Is global warming alarmism simply false or is it fraudulent?
Now, after the Mann hockey stick fiasco, “Mike’s Nature trick”, “Hide the Decline”, the fabricated aerosol data used to false-hindcast the warming alarmists’ climate models, the Climategate emails, and the many false “adjustments” of the surface temperature data record, there is no question:
Global warming alarmism is clearly fraudulent – in financial terms, it is one of the greatest frauds of all time.


May I quote you?

Yes you may quote me.




I’d love to see them try to prosecute someone as a climate change denier. It would force them to try to prove their case for AGW in a court of law. It’s impossible, and they would look like the utter fools and con artists they are. Unfortunately this whole dog and poney show is probably nothing more than another attempt to intimidate the skeptics. It won’t work.