Al Gore, Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat AGs threaten to silence and bankrupt skeptics
Guest opinion by Paul Driessen
It’s been a rough stretch for Climate Armageddon religionists and totalitarians.
Real World science, climate and weather events just don’t support their manmade cataclysm narrative. The horrid consequences of anti-fossil fuel energy policies are increasingly in the news. And despite campaigns by the $1.5-trillion-per-year government-industry-activist-scientific Climate Crisis Consortium, Americans consistently rank global warming at the very bottom of their serious concerns.
But instead of debating their critics, or marshaling a more persuasive, evidence-based case that we really do face a manmade climate catastrophe, alarmists have ramped up their shrill rhetoric, imposed more anti-hydrocarbon edicts by executive fiat and unratified treaty – and launched RICO attacks on their critics.
Spurred on by Senator Sheldon “Torquemada” Whitehouse (D-RI), Jagadish Shukla and his RICO-20 agitators, and their comrades, 16 of the nation’s 18 Democratic attorneys general (the other 32 are Republican) announced on March 29 that they are going after those who commit the unpardonable offense of questioning “consensus” climate science.
If companies are “committing fraud,” by “knowingly deceiving” the public about the threat of man-made carbon dioxide emissions and climate change, New York AG Eric Schneiderman intoned, “we want to expose it and pursue them to the fullest extent of the law,” under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. “The First Amendment does not give you the right to commit fraud.”
Their initial target is ExxonMobil, but other companies, think tanks like CFACT and the Heartland Institute (with which I am affiliated), and even independent researchers and analysts (like myself) will be in their crosshairs – using a law intended for the Mafia. Incredibly, even United States Attorney General Loretta Lynch says her office has “discussed” similar actions and has “referred [the matter] to the FBI.”
These RICO investigations and prosecutions are chilling, unprecedented and blatantly un-American. They abuse our legal and judicial processes and obliterate the First Amendment freedom of speech rights of anyone who questions the catechism of climate cataclysm. The AGs’ actions are intended to browbeat skeptics into silence, and bankrupt them with monumental legal fees, fines and treble damages.
It is the campus “crime” of “unwelcome ideas” and “micro-aggression” on steroids. It is the inevitable result of President Obama’s determination to “fundamentally transform” the United States, ensure that electricity rates “necessarily skyrocket,” and carve his energy and climate policy legacy in granite.
Mr. O and his allies are on a mission: to rid the world of fossil fuels, replace them with “clean” biofuels (that are also carbon-based and also emit carbon dioxide when burned, but would require billions of acres of crop and habitat land) and “eco-friendly” bird-killing wind turbines and solar installations (that will require millions more acres) – and implement the goals of a dictatorial United Nations.
Former executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change Christiana Figueres put it in the bluntest terms: “We are setting ourselves the task of intentionally to change [sic] the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years” – the free enterprise capitalist system. “The next world climate summit is actually an economic summit, during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated,” her UN climate crisis cohort Otmar Edendorfer added. “We will redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.”
Thus, under the 2015 Paris climate treaty, developing nations will be under no obligation to reduce their fossil fuel use or greenhouse gas emissions. They will simply take voluntary steps, when doing so will not impair their efforts to drive economic growth and improve their people’s living standards. Meanwhile, they will be entitled to share $3 billion to $300 billion per year in “climate change adaptation, mitigation and reparation” money. In fact, Mr. Obama has already transferred $500 million in taxpayer money (illegally) from a State Department emergency fund to the UN’s Green Climate Fund.
No wonder developing nations were thrilled to sign the 2015 Paris not-a-treaty treaty.
Recent headlines portend what’s in store. EU electricity prices rise 63% over past decade. Rising energy costs, green policies threaten to kill steel industry and 4,000 to 40,000 jobs, as Tata Steel quits Britain. Thousands of Europeans lose jobs, as manufacturing moves to countries with lower energy prices. Unable to afford proper heat, 40,000 Europeans die of hypothermia during 2014 winter.
In Africa and other energy-deprived regions: Millions die in 2015 from lung and intestinal diseases – due to open cooking and heating fires, spoiled food and unsafe water, and absence of electricity.
Meanwhile, despite mandates, loan guarantees, feed-in tariffs, endangered species exemptions and other subsidies, renewable industries are barely surviving: SunEnergy, world’s largest green energy company, faces bankruptcy, as share prices fall 95% in one year. Solar company Abengoa US files for Chapter 15 bankruptcy. China stops building wind turbines, as grid is damaged and most electricity is wasted.
But Climate Crisis ruling elites pay little attention to this. They will be insulated, enriched, and protected from their decisions and deceptions – as they decide what energy, jobs, living standards and freedoms the poor, minority, blue-collar and middle classes will be permitted to have.
Equally disturbing, their drive for total control is based on a chaotic world that is totally at odds with what the rest of us see outside our windows. Even after “homogenizing” and massaging the raw data, climate alarmists can only show that global temperatures may have risen a few tenths of a degree (barely the margin of error) during the 2015 El Niño year, after 19 years of no temperature increase, following two decades of slight warming, following three decades of slight cooling and warming.
On the “extreme weather” front, tornadoes, snows, floods and droughts are no more frequent or intense than over the past century. No Category 3-5 hurricane has made US landfall in a record 125 months. Polar ice remains well within historic fluctuations, and sea levels are rising at barely seven inches per century.
Alarmists thus rely on computer models that predict even “worse catastrophes,” if global temperatures rise even 0.5 degrees C (0.8 F) more than they already have since the Little Ice Age ended and Industrial Era began. However, the models are hopelessly deficient, and totally unable to predict the climate.
They overstate the climate’s sensitivity to carbon dioxide and methane, atmospheric gases chosen because they result from fossil fuel use (and from many natural sources). They assume these two gases have become the primary forces in climate change – and ignore or downplay changing solar energy, cosmic ray and geomagnetic output; major periodic fluctuations in Pacific and North Atlantic Ocean circulation; volcanic activity; regional and planetary temperature cycles that recur over multiple decades, centuries or millennia; and other natural forces that have always driven planetary warming, cooling and weather.
The models and modelers do this because these factors and their roles in climate change are not well understood, are difficult to measure, and do not fit the “humans are at fault” meme. They compound these errors by assuming that any warming will be dangerous, rather than beneficial for people and agriculture.
These oversights can be characterized as careless, recklessly negligent, or even “knowingly deceitful” and fraudulent. So can “nine inconvenient untruths” that a United Kingdom judge highlighted in Al Gore’s infamous fake-documentary movie – and Mr. Gore’s recent claim that atmospheric CO2 is fueling Zika outbreaks. Likewise for James Hansen’s repeated assertion that sea levels could rise “several meters” (117 inches) over the next century, and the bogus studies behind the phony “97% consensus” claims.
Can you picture the cabal of AGs filing RICO actions in these cases? If you want the facts, and a few chuckles about climate alarmism, see the Climate Hustle movie, coming May 2 to a theater near you.
Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Wow, has this story been spun. The “prosecution”, if that ever occurs, would be of certain corporate entities that knowingly buried or attempted to discredit science showing a link between CO2 and global warming, similar to the actions of the tobacco companies regarding health effects. I have not seen anything, other than the results of the aforementioned out-of-context, edited, spinning, that indicates that these actions are directed at climate change skeptics in general.
What’s hilarious about all this is that these companies have had virtually nothing to do with global
warming skepticism, and any penalties would have zero effect on continued scientific skepticism.
Well it is quite obvious from those photographs, that those two share the same genes
g
Does the first Amendment grant the right to commit fraud to members of the Congress, such as passing laws to which they themselves are exempt ??
Well contempt rhymes with exempt.
G
george e. smith….
As in laws that must pass to find out what’s in them? As in the greatest fraud of all time (in terms of $$$$)?
Exxon Mobil has had nothing to do with global climate skepticism?
Perhaps the 32 Republican AGs should band together and support legislation making it unlawful to prosecute anyone based on their beliefs
Oh…Wait…Isn’t that the First Ammendment
Mark Steyn and Michael Mann ring any bells?
Fred Singer / Pat Michaels / Robert Balling / Richard Lindzen / Sherwood Idso and Al Gore / Naomi Oreskes / Ross Gelbspan ring any bells? Willie Soon and Greenpeace? What’s old is new again, Al Gore’s foray into the AGs’ press conference just puts a closing bookend on the whole deal since he was seen at the start of the whole 20 year+ accusation that such skeptics are paid industry money to lie. But if Gore keeps this up, it will only lead more people into trying to figure out if the accusation holds any water, and when they discover it doesn’t, that will only lead them to wonder where the accusation came from in the first place. Sheer political suicide on Gore’s part.
Politics has as much of a role for Gore as enlightenment did on Hillary & Bill’s paid speeches. Bring cash, that is all the persons named care about.
Chris on April 4, 2016 at 9:59 pm
Exxon Mobil has had nothing to do with global climate skepticism?
_____________
Chris on April 4, 2016 at 9:59 pm
You seemingly had nothing to do with global climate skepticism – and You feel good about that. Feelings!
Slipstick – You are missing the point. New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman is quoted as saying “If there are companies, whether they’re utilities, whether they’re fossil fuel companies, committing fraud in an effort to maximize their short-term profits at the expense of the people we represent, we want to find out about it. We want to expose it and want to pursue them to the fullest extent of the law.”. But the law being used is RICO. Other laws deal with fraud, RICO deals with racketeering. So Schneiderman’s statement is fraudulently misleading, and what he is involved in is pure McCarthyism.
RICO deals with racketeering and many other offenses by “Corrupt Organizations” (the CO), fraud being one of those offenses. You probably should take a look at the act and judge whether it applies.
Sl – The RICO act makes it unlawful to (a) launder money generated by racketeering activity, (b) acquire or maintain an interest in an enterprise by racketeering activity, (c) manipulate an enterprise for purposes of engaging in, concealing, or benefiting from racketeering activity, (d) conspire to violate (a), (b) or (c) above. http://ricoact.com/?page_id=21 For there to be raketeering activity there first has to be a crime in specified categories. The only categories which refer to fraud are: identification documents, access devices, mail fraud, wire fraud, financial institution fraud. http://ricoact.com/?page_id=122
It’s surely a very long stretch to claim that it applies to Exxon’s alleged activity.
In a court of law you actually have to demonstrate harm ” at the expense of the people” to prove fraud, racketeering or any other crime.
Potential, maybe, could happen, some scientists think it might lead to some unspecific speculative weather/climate harm 50 to 100 years from now doesn’t work in an arena where rules of evidence are boss and not fortune telling. The facetious persecution by New York Attorney General Eric Schneidermanis is just not provable in a court of law.
Additionally it is impossible to prove that Exxon was leaps and bounds ahead of climate scientists who love to cry disaster at every opportunity or that Exxon had “secret knowledge” of world doom.
Eric is a political-hack with stars in his eyes whose attempt at bullying despoils his office and requires impeachment.
What seems so strange to me is that state prosecutors propose to apply a law for combating organized crime (RICO) to companies that produce fossil fuels that have been the basis for American and global prosperity for 150 years.
This signifies to me that the proponents of this novel use of RICO know little about American economic history and geography and it seems they are unaware of the economic and financial risks to America of current “decarbonization” policies.
Alx, what gets me is the “secret knowledge”. Yeah, Exxon has a lot of good scientists, but practically none in the atmospheric sciences. Do they really think a group of Chemical Engineers and Geologists with day jobs making petroleum products are that far ahead of NASA, NOAA, and everyone else in the world on atmospheric research?
Ben,
Looking at the current state of ‘Climate Science’ and those that claim to be experts in the field I would imagine that Exxon’s “Chemical Engineers and Geologists with day jobs making petroleum products” are far more competent. They surely know more about historical climate than the self proclaimed experts. As opposed to academia an engineer’s or geologist’s job depends on him/her being correct, not on posing speculation as proven theory or writing blue-sky grant proposals.
Can we convict the pro CAGW group for falsifying as well? There’s plenty of evidence of “adjusted” and hidden material.
This action goes against democratic principles in an egregious way. It is a bullying tactic, intended to silence all who dare question the sacrosanct “consensus”. Those who engage in such tactics are not going to stop there. Those who think they would are seriously delusional, or simply lying.
Slipstick
Why on earth would Exxon know something about AGW that the combined hordes of climate scientists did not?
What appears to have prompted this action was the news that, if I recall correctly, Exxon scientists had voiced concerns over CO2 in the early 1980’s and that, subsequent to this, Exxon, and other fossil fuel companies, engaged in a FUD campaign to discredit a link between CO2 and global warming.
It turns out that a lot of our knowledge of past climate comes from oil companies. The deposit of reservoir rock in basins like the Gulf Of Mexico is associated with major sea level changes. River deltas go much further out when sea level falls, for example.
Much of this information is gleaned from seismic data and from drilled and logged oil wells and the vast majority of this data and the models built from it is not available to the general public or to the universities.
Slipstick, some in Exxon had concerns but nothing was known for sure and who knows, the concerned scientists may have been driven by political ideology. When I was at university in the 70s the term greenhouse was being thrown about but no-one, but no-one, seemed to be able to quantify their concerns. If it were so obvious then that CO2 was going to cook the world then I am sure some of the extremely smart engineering professors that I was lucky enough to know would have either worked it out or found out who had. If you can’t quantify then you can’t discredit the link which means it was just a hypothesis which is a status that can’t be claimed today because it has been disproved by the lack of predicted outcomes.
4eyes said: Slipstick, some in Exxon had concerns but nothing was known for sure and who knows, the concerned scientists may have been driven by political ideology.
If it wasn’t known for sure, then why did Mobil “design and build a collection of exploration and production facilities along the Nova Scotia coast that made structural allowances for rising temperatures and sea levels.”
http://graphics.latimes.com/oil-operations/
@chris
From your link :“An estimated rise in water level, due to global warming, of 0.5 meters may be assumed” for the 25-year life of the Sable gas field project, Mobil engineers wrote in their design specifications. The project, owned jointly by Mobil, Shell and Imperial Oil (a Canadian subsidiary of Exxon), went online in 1999; it is expected to close in 2017.
As ever, predictions associated with climate alarmism turn out to be hopelessly wrong no matter where they come from. The trend in sea level rise around Nova Scotia is about 30 centimetres per century.
The really odd thing about this is that the first IPCC report didn’t come out until 1990, and even that report only claimed a 50% certainty that warming was due to human influence. How is Exxon supposed to have been certain, years earlier, of the dangers of CO2 warming when even the top climate scientists weren’t?
Charlie said: ‘As ever, predictions associated with climate alarmism turn out to be hopelessly wrong no matter where they come from. The trend in sea level rise around Nova Scotia is about 30 centimetres per century.’
That is not the point of this article, nor my comment. The link I posted clearly shows that Exxon internally believed that AGW was real and cause for action, while at the same time they spent money on lobbying and ads arguing that it was not cause for concern.
Chris,
The link you posted has about as much credibility as hotwhopper.
dbstealey,
As usual, zero actual refutation of what I have posted. That’s not the mark of a scientist, that’s the mark of an empty suit.
Chris, stop with the projection. I doubt you even have a suit.
Paul Homewood resolved this whole issue with one simple question:
Why on earth would Exxon know something about AGW that the combined hordes of climate scientists did not?
But as always, you never answer questions. Because if you started down that road, your arguments would be demolished.
They are anyway, by the ultimate Authority: Planet Earth. Not one scary prediction ever made has come true. They were all 100.0% wrong.
At this point, only an eco-religious True Believer would still try to sell that debunked narrative.
dbstealey commented: “… Not one scary prediction ever made has come true. They were all 100.0% wrong… ”
Not one. After hundreds of scare mongering projections/predictions have failed to materialize you would think more people would be skeptical. The AGW propaganda machine continues spewing misinformation and never questions the failures. Even when the goalposts are moved they still can’t get it right.
It’s never been demonstrated that any corporate entity tried to bury or discredit anything.
Heck, it’s never been shown that there is any science showing a link between CO2 and anything other than mild and beneficial warming.
There appears to be a link between the extent of thriving vegetation and the CO2 concentration, but we have known that from EU hothouses that pipe enough CO2 from local fossil fuel plants to get up to 1,000 ppm+. Certainly, the escathological cargo cult of the CAGW has considered the null hypothesis that the sun and its magnetic field are responsible for the warming in the 20th century and rejected it with a degree of statistical significance. I must have missed the significance level. Where does it appear in print?
“It’s never been demonstrated that any corporate entity tried to bury or discredit anything.”
Mobil ran anti-alarmist ads for over a decade. That’s what counts as “discrediting.” But it wasn’t the case that Mobil knew that alarmism was justified.
What the prosecutors are seeking to do is to get a ruling entitling them to engage in “discovery” in the hopes of turning up some embarrassing material that greenies can then use as part of their indoctrination campaign. I doubt that their real aims go further than that.
Solipsistic slapstick (aka BS)
Solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one’s own mind is sure to exist.
Solipsism isn’t ambitious enough.
Your mind may insist that you exist but why would you believe your own lying mind?
“The “prosecution”, if that ever occurs, would” … be against any entity in which a judgement could prove monetarily or politically profitable.
The threat of prosecution will be against any entity in which it would be politically advantageous.
It doesn’t matter what you see, when your perspective is so very limited.
Then why are they using RICO, if not to try to cast as wide a net as possible?
And if a baker’s dozen of Inspector Generals pursued NASA, GISS, EPA, DOE and other entities in a similar fashion, maybe the “entities that knowingly buried or attempted to discredit science showing no link between CO2 and global warming” would be revealed.
Slip is the one spinning here. If you can’t win on the science, then resort to the ever loyal regulatory state. Exxon included references to the literature on global warming, but that wasn’t enough obeisance for the climate inquisition. How many 10-Q’s and -K’s were filed by windfarms disclosing that there were in violation of endangered species acts? Where is Whitehouse on the investigation into Shukla’s double dipping?
Practice your religion in your own home. Leave the rest of us out of it.
Rhode Island is another one of the New England states that wants electricity from Canada so they can shut down their power plants. Nice to be “green” if you can get someone else to pay for it.
Sen. Whitehouse was one of the senators who voted no on Keystone XL. Don’t like/want Canadian oil but it’s OK to get Canadian electricity paid for by Canadians.
Tar Sands Solutions Network, Canada
Steering Committee includes:
David Turnbull, Oil Change International and s/o Susan Turnbull former Vice-chair of the U.S. Democratic National Committee.
Bill McKibben, 350.org
Other members of the Tar Sands Solutions Steering Committee have past or present connections to Greenpeace.
http://tarsandssolutions.org/about. Or Google
————————————————
Wikipedia: Susan Turnbull
Former Vice-chair of The Democratic National Committee
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Turnbull
The Globe And Mail, Canada, Sept.14, 2015
‘Canadian courts could face climate change cases in wake of Dutch ruling’
Scroll down to : Greenpeace Canada
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/the-law-page/canadian-courts-could-face-climate-change-cases-in-wake-of-dutch-ruling/article26360947
Or Google
CIGI, Waterloo, ON, Canada
Roger Cox, CIGI Sr. Fellow and Partner at Paulussen Advocaten, Netherlands, “The Dutch Case”
http://www.cigionline.org/experts and click on the “Name”
CIGI, Founder and Chair.Jim Balaillie
INET/Insitiute for New Economic Thinking, New York City founded by George Soros, Jim Balasillie and Wm.Janeway.
IUCNAEL Colloquium 2016, Oslo
Pluricourts, Oslo 20-24 June
‘Side Event: Limiting Dangerous Climate Change: The Emerging Importance of Domestic Courts and Human Rights Tribunals – Especially After Paris’
CIGI Law Research Program discussion about climate litigation.
http://www.iucnael2016.no/side-events
Participants – Key Jurists are listed.
Slipstick,
“I have not seen anything, other than the results of the aforementioned out-of-context, edited, spinning, that indicates that these actions are directed at climate change skeptics in general.”
I have not seen anything that leads me to believe anyone one this planet is skeptical of the idea that climate change occurs . . Where did you get the impression there exists any “climate change skeptics in general” that could be effected by “these actions”?
There are climate change skeptics. Mann is not only a climate change skeptic, he’s a denier. He denies the climate changed for 1,000 years.
Well, sorta, Ron . . but I don’t believe even he believes what he generated with that infamous patchwork graph etc . .
“What appears to have prompted this action was the news that, if I recall correctly, Exxon scientists had voiced concerns over CO2 in the early 1980’s and that, subsequent to this, Exxon, and other fossil fuel companies, engaged in a FUD campaign to discredit a link between CO2 and global warming.”
The problem with your understanding, Skipstick, is that you seem to be unaware of the fact that there was no such thing as an International Panel on Climate Change until 1988, and the First Assessment Report (FAR) released by that agency was in 1990. More importantly, FAR couched its language with declarations of uncertainties. Indeed, FAR uses the word “uncertainties” eighty-nine times. It is also a fact that the Exxon scientists who “voiced concerns over Co2” also voiced their uncertainties. This fact does not help these ambitious attorney generals at all.
The influence peddlers are counting on the fact that your understanding goes as far as you’ve been told to understand and not much further than that. States Attorney Generals don’t exist to go on political fishing expeditions to see if a corporation did anything wrong. You have every right to understand this situation anyway you want to understand it, but the limited number of State’s AG’s “united” in this political witch hunt should give you some idea of its popularity. One can only hope that majority have declined to join them because of reasonableness.
In other words, they are counting on people to be dumber than a dipstick?
Slip, there are several things that must be proven for that
1: There must have been data that was hidden.
2: Exxon must have had exclusive access to this data, which is unlikely as there has be A UN PANEL DEDICATED TO THIS FOR TWO DECADES.
3: Exxon must have believed the data. This last one is important, as having the data is not enough.This isn’t “tar in your lungs causes damage” level of obvious. Strong arguments have been raised that small warming is good for most of the planet.
4: Harm must have resulted from their actions. Again, the very existence of the IPCC undermines this argument.
Exxon has many of the finest geologists and chemical engineers on the planet, but has performed no atmospheric research to speak of. The notion that they knew something so strongly when they don’t even employ the type of scientists in the field is ridiculous, and the claim that harm came from their actions despite the fact that there has been active legislation on the field for two decades is just mind-blowing.
The lack of harm is the biggest issue, as it boils down to “being wrong on a scientific or political position is a crime”. Worse, the fact that there are legitimate disagreements means that it really comes down to “disagreeing with a scientific conclusion is a crime”. That’s clearly violation of the first amendment. Plus, when there have been active campaigns by numerous corporations to discredit their detractors (including just this year a Seaworld employee infiltrated PETA to encourage them to perform illegal acts), that means this is clearly arbitrarily and capriciously applied law.
I’m sorry, but there is no case here.
Wow, your mind has been spun. So any person or organization that offers skeptical arguments against the science of CO2 is fair game for the full prosecutorial weight of federal and state government(s). They have nearly unlimited resources and the fact that they can target people who question or offer evidence to the contrary will have a dramatic chilling effect on free speech and the pursuit of truth in regards to climate.
This is not analogous to the tobacco suits.
You put a lot of faith in the good will and judgment of prosecutors in this country. Faith that is grossly misplaced.
But they would be bankrupted trying to defend themselves. Even the largest would have their operations severely harmed for a decade.
It seems odd to me that someone going by the moniker “Slipstick” would apparently be ignorant of the concept of “the slippery slope”.
Slipstick,
“attempted to discredit science showing a link between CO2 and global warming”
That would be difficult to do. Despite 28 years of climate “science”, documented by the IPCC, climate scientists have yet to prove causality between atmospheric CO2 concentrations and surface temperature. Which is why they still cannot agree on a definitive value for climate sensitivity.
The simple answer is that atmospheric CO2 does not behave the way climate scientists expect it to behave. However, chemists and engineers have had a thorough understanding of CO2’s physical properties since 1954, when Hoyt C. Hottel wrote the textbook on CO2 emissivity: Radiant Heat Transmission. But you won’t see any climate science papers citing Hottel, or B. Leckner’s various papers on emissivity of CO2, or Michael Modest’s textbook, Radiative Heat Transfer. The following paper shows why climate scientists have CO2 properties all wrong. If you don’t enjoy the mathematics, go straight to figure 23:
http://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijas/2013/503727/
The more complex answer appears to be that climate science has been looking at causality completely the wrong way around. The following paper shows that there is strong causality between increasing surface temperature and increasing CO2, with increases in CO2 always lagging an increase in temperature. However, it found that the reverse was not true: decreasing temperature did not result in decreasing CO2:
http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ijg.2010.13014
It also fails to find any situation where increasing or decreasing CO2 is strongly correlated to increasing or decreasing temperature – at any time period of lag.
This is just the first step. The trial prosecution, if you will. Mark my words, these zealots won’t stop until ALL dissent is silenced one way or another.
As for your “link” between plant food and CAGW, that is absolutely meaningless in the context of actual science. Links are even weaker than correlation. As an example, eating can be linked to car accidents. After all, many people who are involved in car accidents ate within a few hours of the accident. And yes, that is exactly how strong a link is as a relationship between 2 events.
Slipstick,
Wake up. The U.S. Attorney General has explicitly stated that she assisted the FBI regarding possible prosecution.
The President of the U.S. has spoken about ‘climate change’ as a higher priority than things like the rise of ISIS.
This is simply a copy of the Nazi’s “Big Lie” tactic. But it isn’t working with the public, so they’re ratcheting it up with legal threats.
Only a credulous fool would dismiss those actions as “spin”. If you had the slightest knowledge of 20th century history, you wouldn’t be singing that nutty tune.
Paul Dreissen asked me to post this response to “slipstick”
Not more than a couple hours later, I received this memo from Myron Ebell at CEI. Perhaps you should post it, not only as a response to Slipstick, to demonstrate that my assessment was totally on-target, while his was completely off-base – but also as an advisory to every “climate denier” out there … as to what might be heading their way real soon.
Heck, you yourself and your blasphemous organization may also have received a similar love letter by now, as I’m sure CFACT and Heartland have or will shortly.
Things could really get interesting (and very expensive for us) from this point forward. I wonder what the media, congressional Republicans, Republican presidential candidates and Republican governors and attorneys general might now do in response to this unprecedented and flagrantly un-American attack on our most fundamental constitutional rights, and the most basic component of the scientific method and sound public policy making: free speech and open, robust debate. For that matter, how will the American people and voters respond?
Best regards,
Paul
=====================================================
I expect that many members of the Cooler Heads Coalition received similar subpoenas today from the Attorney General of the U. S. Virgin Islands. He is co-operating with New York AG Eric Schneiderman in a witch hunt against Exxon Mobil, other fossil fuel energy companies, “and their allies” for “climate fraud.” Let me know if your group got one. We should work together to fight this outrageous campaign of harassment and intimidation.
CEI Will Fight Subpoena from US Virgin Islands AG
Attack on Free Speech is Abuse and Intimidation
WASHINGTON- APRIL 7, 2016 – The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) today denounced a subpoena from Attorney General Claude E. Walker of the U.S. Virgin Islands that attempts to unearth a decade of the organization’s materials and work on climate change policy. This is the latest effort in an intimidation campaign to criminalize speech and research on the climate debate, led by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and former Vice President Al Gore.
“CEI will vigorously fight to quash this subpoena. It is an affront to our First Amendment rights of free speech and association for Attorney General Walker to bring such intimidating demands against a nonprofit group,” said CEI General Counsel Sam Kazman. “If Walker and his allies succeed, the real victims will be all Americans, whose access to affordable energy will be hit by one costly regulation after another, while scientific and policy debates are wiped out one subpoena at a time.”
The subpoena requests a decade’s worth of communications, emails, statements, drafts, and other documents regarding CEI’s work on climate change and energy policy, including private donor information. It demands that CEI produce these materials from 20 years ago, from 1997-2007, by April 30, 2016.
On March 30, 2016, Attorney General Schneiderman, former Vice President Al Gore, and attorneys general from Massachusetts, Virginia, Connecticut, Maryland, Vermont, as well as Attorney General Walker, held a press conference in New York City to announce “an unprecedented coalition of top law enforcement officials committed to aggressively protecting and building upon the recent progress the United States has made in combating climate change.” Schneiderman said that the group, calling itself “AGs United for Clean Power,” will address climate change by threatening criminal investigations and charges against companies, policy organizations, scientists, and others who disagree with its members’ climate policy agenda.
CEI has long been a champion of sound climate change policy, and opposed previous attempts to use McCarthy-style tactics by officials aiming to limit discussions between nonprofit policy groups and the private sector regarding federal policies. CEI is being represented in this matter by attorneys Andrew M. Grossman and David B. Rivkin, Jr., who recently founded the Free Speech in Science Project to defend First Amendment rights against government abuses.
###
https://cei.org/content/competitive-enterprise-institute-will-fight-subpoena-us-virgin-islands-ag
Myron Ebell
Director, Center for Energy and Environment Competitive Enterprise Institute
[The mods recommend forwarding this request for information to Hillary’s State Department Defense-Against-Revealing-Emails Team. They seem very successful at ensuring nothing is ever revealed, nothing ever written about such requests. .mod]
Well, I think the left is playing both sides of this. On the one hand they would like to benefit their crony capitalist donors in the short term by forcing biofuels, wind, and solar on everyone. On the other hand, I do think the objective is to batter down the fossil fuel industry so that other donors can step in and buy them on the cheap.
No matter how you look at it, it’s not in service of citizens, and it’s dirty to the core.
I think USAG Loretta Lynch was asked by political types to look into the matter. Thus, having said they are doing so and turning it over to the FBI is the right response. Reasonably, could she have said anything else?
Those who asked are the ones that should be named.
She said: “We have received information about it and have referred it to the FBI to consider whether or not it meets the criteria …”
This was in response to a question from Sheldon Whitehouse, and very likely it was S.W. that provided the information.
She is the head of the Justice Dept and would be the one to prosecute, so why is she turning the issue over to the FBI? Does she really believe that the FBI contains climatology experts? The answer is pretty obvious – Lynch doesn’t know squat about global warming and, unlike the emptyheaded Obama, she knows that she doesn’t know squat.
The FBI is the investigative arm of the Justice Department. To what other entity should she have referred the Congressional request?
“Hey Loretta! Get someone to show you how to calculate the temperature of air.
Now point at the green house gas effect. We told you it isn’t real, ya dumb lawyer.”
Boom. People told the world there’s no green house gas effect in science, only in some fraudulent computer programmers’ fake scientific pseudo-science. How’s it feel to be a proud Democrat now?
BwaH Hah hah !
Slipstick
Very simple
She should have ignored their request completely as it was totally unconstitutional
She did it to stretch FBI too far to devote the resources required to investigate Billary for espionage.
Of course, what she should have done is to say that this is an obvious fraud and dismissed it out of hand. An honourable politician would have done that. Instead she showed her bias and pushed it onto the FBI to find and enlarge even the smallest of cracks.
Arthur,
She said: “We have received information about it and have referred it to the FBI to consider whether or not it meets the criteria …”
This was in response to a question from Sheldon Whitehouse, and very likely it was S.W. that provided the information.
That aught to be fun – they can’t find any illegal aliens for a start.
The FBI can’t find politicians being bribed by Wall Street, either.
The prosecutions should be simple.
All you have to do is cite the definitive scientific peer-reviewed study that incontrovertibly ties man as the primary progenitor of current climate warming.
What could be easier ?
Actually, you have to do a whole lot more than that – you have to present incontrovertible evidence that
the human induced warming will in fact result in a disaster, in the near term, and that these companies
had some significant effect in this outcome, and that they knew the outcome would be disastrous, and that they somehow benefitted from same. Now what’s to stop someone from suing these governors for fraud
in their claims about global warming disasters? Let’s see these governors prove that global warming is an
imminent disaster. And if the cigarette companes were guilty of fraud, why are cigarettes still legal and a source of enormous income for the govt? Why are they taxing e cigaretes and lying about their supposed dangers?
Maybe swear on a stack of IPCC reports?
@ur momisugly RonClutz, Yep and once these AG’s start riding bicycles with wooden tires and or walking to work I might give them the light of day. ( Oh heck I forgot making steel for bike frames uses the evil fossil fuels.)
This is a good time to start looking into how each state handles proceeds from AG settlements.
And here we go, the Spanish Inquisition all over again.
http://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DNf_Y4MbUCLY&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwi9upPv6fXLAhWLGx4KHYPiBSUQtwIIIjAC&usg=AFQjCNGB_uuiFa8cHsjbrJ0BWpUD4aA2iw
No One Expects The Spanish Inquisition
The method they are trying here is really bad.
It could lead to suits of companies who don’t cite possible effects of tectonic plate shifts, zombie & other apocalypses, dogs & cats living together, and extra-terrestrial & ultra-terrestrial life form encounters to the corporate bottom lines.
That is no a problem for the block voting libs in the Supreme Court who may be the majority within a year. They are skilled enough to do the crafting work and make it fit.
not a problem
Those are all legitimate possible externalities! /sarc
Leaving these zealots in office will result in even more attempts to defend the indefensible. The worse the facts, the more the green blob will strike out at their enemies. As the US economy is one of their targets, anyone who is not a part of the rent-seeking supporters or the blinded yahoos who want or think economic collapse is a good thing should oppose them.
Green Building Law Update, March 27, 2016
‘The Defamation Case Against Greenpeace’
Here’s one Canadian Company that’s had it with Greenpeace!
http://www.greenbuildinglawupdate.com/2016/03/articles/legal/the-defamation-case-against-greenpeace
Case is now moving forward in Canada.
The ironic part is that we are more likely to face a Higgs Boson disaster before a real climate apocalypse.
If there is actually really such a particle!
RICO used against climate scientists? Time to have another romp through Harry.read.me with racketeering in mind?
No, not against climate scientists.
Slip, you’ve said that twice in this thread.
I suggest you contact Dr. Willie Soon, a target of Sheldon Whitehead, and see if he agrees with you.
Doggedly brazen it out long enough, Slipstick, and hope. There are a few dupes around, just not on this forum. You might check in with your handlers for new instructions.
I agree with the gist of the above. It is truly becoming a religion, this gaia worshipping. Prosecute the non-believers!
One question though about this statement:
Would anybody have a link to evidence/research/data about this? Exceptionally high figure imo.
Yes, 40,000 looks much too high for hypothermia deaths, even for the whole of Europe. But the figure is far too low for “excess winter deaths”‘ as the UK alone can have that many. The source may have been this report http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/weather/11382808/Winter-death-toll-to-exceed-40000.html “Winter death toll ‘to exceed 40,000′” (UK excess winter deaths not Europe hypothermia) .
I couldn’t find Europe hypothermia stats, but they wouldn’t be wildly different to the US. http://www.rightdiagnosis.com/h/hypothermia/stats.htm “Death rate extrapolations for USA for Hypothermia: 816 per year”.
Please help me here.
I live in the UK and winter deaths from hypothermia are and were in the news.
The figure quoted was assumed to be around 40,000 for Great Britain.
We have a fairly clement climate, the islands are not as big an area as the united states.
Yet the figure extraporlated for USA is 816 per year?
There’s a big difference between hypothermia and excess winter deaths. Hypothermia is a specific condition, whereas excess winter deaths is in essence winter death count minus summer death count. Journos are unlikely to be able to distinguish between the two (!).Excess winter deaths include all sorts of conditions that are not hypothermia but are typically associated with poorly insulated/heated houses and the elderly – flu, thrombosis, respiratory infections, etc. See the telegraph.co.uk link in my previous comment, also http://www.wmpho.org.uk/excesswinterdeathsinEnglandatlas/.
it’s what you get from third or fourth hand, motivated regurge of the stats called ‘excess winter deaths’
almost none are hypothermia
http://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/excesswintermortalityinenglandandwales/201415provisionaland201314final
the specific causes are mainly:
circulatory diseases, respiratory diseases, dementia and Alzheimer’s disease
http://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/excesswintermortalityinenglandandwales/201415provisionaland201314final#excess-winter-mortality-ewm-in-201415-by-underlying-cause-of-death
google ‘excess winter deaths’ for any country – even tropical countries show this seasonal effect.
fact checking is just that simple.
“I agree with the gist of the above. It is truly becoming a religion, this gaia worshipping.”
Maybe. But Charles MacKay thought there is a different explanation. Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds is a history of popular folly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_Popular_Delusions_and_the_Madness_of_Crowds
The book is not subject to copyright.
Definitely post democratic governance.
The law means whatever we say.
The law applies only to our enemies.
We are special.
“Let them eat cake”.
First,
Can an attorney general be personally held liable for the financial repercussions of their idiocy?.
Second,
When revealed to be open violators of the oaths of office, do these people have to resign?
Just one technical question. Will the witch burning be on piles of fossil fuels, open barrels of bio fuels, or renewable wood pellet energy as defined by EU rules? Do the guilty victims get to choose?
Probably send them up on a hot air balloon at Ivanpah.
Ouch!
Torquemada, do not implore him for compassion! Torquemada, do not beg him for forgiveness! Torquemada, do ask him for mercy! Let’s face it you can’t talk him outta anything!
From your text, above: “Their initial target is ExxonMobil, but other companies, think tanks like CFACT and the Heartland Institute (with which I am affiliated), and even independent researchers and analysts (like myself) will be in their crosshairs”. This seems to be contradictory “….the Heartland Institute (with which I am affiliated), and even independent researchers and analysts (like myself)….”; are you “independent” or are you affiliated with Heartland? There is a reason an individual has an affiliation with a particular institution or organization; generally, its because that individual ascribes to that organization’s mission, goals, objectives or philosophy. We all know Heartland’s position on climate change and I need not say more.
No matter, you neglected to include ALEC (http://www.alecexposed.org/wiki/What_is_ALEC%3F ) or Koch Industries in your list of potential targets by the various AGs and what of the Koch-funded Berkeley study whose outcome was exactly the opposite of what was anticipated by those who funded the study?
I would tend to agree with studies published in the name of public institutions where the profit motive isn’t a factor. Those studies would generally include members of academia from public universities. Right out of the gate, I read this article (and generally most articles published on this website) with a skeptical eye once I learned of your Heartland affiliation.
I agree with you, in part, that using the RICO statute is an inappropriate abuse of power but I also believe that it is done out of desperation.
And this made me laugh: “Americans consistently rank global warming at the very bottom of their serious concerns”. Who cares what Americans think and what their opinions are? Really! They are the most under-educated class of people alive today, at lease when it comes to matters of science, mathematics or any STEM field. Opinions that matter generally come from individuals who are educated in the particular field of interest or who inform themselves and are thus, in a position to render an opinion based on objective facts, not from a political or religious perspective but from science and rationality. I respect an informed opinion regardless of what side of the debate it resides and that generally would exclude the opinions of most Americans.
You are in dire need of further education. The US is the fourth most educated country in the world, after Japan, Israel and Canada, in that order.
http://247wallst.com/special-report/2012/09/21/the-most-educated-countries-in-the-world/2/
And lack of concern about global warming is also common in other, less educated countries.
Yeah, those bozos won most of the Nobel Prizes, saved all your A55s in World Wars, repaired, reoriented and launched forward the countries who even lost the World Wars, showed the world how to prosper through creating a society that was the the most inventive and productive in the world (you can lead a horse to water but can’t make him drink), generously gave to the rest of the world, the only people who have landed on the moon, visited and photographed all the planets, landed on planetary moons, trekked all over Mars with magnificent robots, sent two probes out of the solar system into interstellar space, gave you the electronic revolution, modern medicine ….
Yeah, Mr. Madigan, I can see why you guys hate Americans everytime you look in the mirror. You do use their lightbulbs, aircraft, kinematography, sound recordings, automobiles or your copies of same ……
You know who these people are? They are the descendants of dissenters, the persecuted, those desirous of freedom and a better life who came to America and built a powerhouse economy and society and in the process impoverished your own country, leaving nobility landowners and subsistance farmers who needed America’s blueprint. Read the French Constitution – it is virtually a plagiarized American Constitution that they didn’t follow well enough. Nor did America’s economic examples catch fire in your land. You preferred the moldy oldy Marxbrothers manifesto for ultimate ruin that keeps raising it’s ugly head. I suppose I should ask what wonderful things you personally have done for which you are so proud. But no need to. The superiority complex is actually the most dysfunctional form of the inferiority complex.
Oh, I don’t happen to be American, but I recognize the debt.
‘[Editor’s note: The original headline was changed to correct an inaccuracy about who funded the new climate study. Moreover, the original headline inferred that the Charles Koch Charitable Foundation may not have funded the research if it had known what the outcome would be, although there is no indication that is the case.]’
http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2011/1021/Climate-study-funded-in-part-by-conservative-group-confirms-global-warming
T. Madigan, “what of the Koch-funded Berkeley study whose outcome was exactly the opposite of what was anticipated by those who funded the study”.
Got a link to show it was opposite to what was anticipated?
This exercise is left to the student. So here goes:
It is entirely possible to be “independent” or even associated with one organization and also be affiliated with another. I presume those “affiliated” with the IPCC and also hold a position with say East Anglica University are OK by you? Can Hansen (retired and therefore independent) join the “Union of Concerned Scientists”? This is hardly contradictory. Or should we now dismiss everything Hansen says?
I’m sure you know Koch was not the major funder of the Berkley study. A number of people were taken in by Meuller, and those folks should have known better because he had commercial interests on the “warmist” side, despite his very reasonable take-down of Mann and Jones in a video that went viral.
“I would tend to agree with studies published in the name of public institutions where the profit motive isn’t a factor.”
ARE YOU KIDDING?!? The Penn State investigation of Dr. Mann was dismissed on two counts.
1. He said he didn’t do it.
2. He brought in so many grants that he couldn’t possibly be corrupt.
(Look Dr Lindzen’s astonishment in his write-up of the conclusions. He was brought in as an expert by Penn State in the first stage of the investigation.)
I am desperate regarding the possible election of Clinton. Would I be justified in bringing in RICO to stop her? (You know, come to think of it, I probably COULD make a fraud racketeering charge stick against the Clinton Foundation.)
As has been pointed out, Americans are far from the bottom of the barrel in education. And surveys of the CITIZENS of countries around the world all show “Climate” (whatever that means) well below all “kitchen table” and international issues.
But because of their education, and what remains of a constantly eroding sense of the independent thought that built this country, Americans still have a tendency to “believe their lying eyes”. Despite “models”, hurricanes are NOT increasing, polar bears ARE increasing, Hansen’s East Side office is not under water, and Western NY will have a deep freeze tonight in April.
“They (Americans) are the most under-educated class of people alive today, at lease (sic) when it comes to matters of science, mathematics or any STEM field.”
I don’t know what you are basing this claim on. Since 1962 when I left my native country, I have lived and worked in over 15 countries. In my experience, what you claim is not the opposite of the true state of affairs, but nearly so.
As for caring about what Americans think, wherever you travel worldwide, you with find America both admired and hated. But you will not find indifference: we do care what Americans think and do, for better and worse.
You have put your finger on a problem, the apparent failure of democratic political systems in North America and Europe to give voice to those who oppose “decarbonization” policies for whatever reason.
Democracy itself is at issue when we claim the right to rule the fate of others based on our superiority compared to their inferiority. Our parents and grandparents fought World War II to decide if the world would be governed on the principle of superiority of elite groups.
Politeness restrains me from putting a name to your philosophy.
Well, THAT is just rude!
T Madigan, in your own extensive education did you come to know that skeptics of CAGW have been shown to be better educated about CAGW then the proponents?
Dear T. Madigan, are you aware of the United Nations ‘My World 2015’ global survey?
As of the 5th April 2016 there has been 9 MILLION, 7 hundred & 22 thousand, 662 respondents to this GLOBAL survey from nearly every country on this planet.
There are 16 categories in the survey, including ‘Action taken on climate change‘.
Do you know where ‘climate change’ is ranked in this GLOBAL survey?
DEAD LAST!!
http://data.myworld2015.org/
BTW, in case you are unaware, the United Nations is the UN in UNIPCC
The charges should really be made against anybody who has used any fossil fuels in the past or even let a GHG such as CH4 into the atmosphere.
All these people should be put in jail.
Precisely, Bill
Let’s start with Al Gore
Don’t forget all those people who have the gall to exhale.
“Are you now, or have you ever, used fossil fuels?”
“The charges should really be made against anybody who has used any fossil fuels in the past or even let a GHG such as CH4 into the atmosphere. All these people should be put in jail.”
That would include Hubert Lamb founder of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (UK) if he were still alive.
Hubert Lamb believed that public support for increased climate research was a good thing. In the Preface to the second edition of his Climate History, he wrote, “The idea of climatic change has at last taken on with the public, after generations which assumed that climate could be taken as constant. But it is easy to notice the common assumption that Man’s science and modern industry and technology are now so powerful that any change of climate or the environment must be due to us. It is good for us to be more alert and responsible in our treatment of the environment, but not to have a distorted view of our own importance. Above all, we need more knowledge, education and understanding in these matters.”
Lamb was concerted that global warming alarmists “have a distorted view of our own importance” compared to Nature. Little wonder, because virtually the entire body of his historical research from ancient to modern times demonstrated that cold periods were associated with periods of human misery and warm periods with prosperity.
Lamb considered four leading issues, the fourth being his objection to, “…the notion that any changes of climate which may be observed nowadays, or in the nearer future, must be attributable to man…,” which he thought “…is unproven and, outside urban and industrial areas, it is probably untrue.” (page 19).
H. H. Lamb, Climate, History and the Modern World, 2nd edition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubert_Lamb#Books
Prosecute different scientific opinions but not blatant breaking of US security laws by Hillary. Makes perfect sense if you are a Democrat, I guess. Just wait until she is president!
““The First Amendment does not give you the right to commit fraud.”
Let us keep this in mind for the inquisitors! I think there should be class actions already on increasing costs of energy, debilitation of the electrical grid, killing of birds and bats with solar and windmills, destruction of the economy, etc., arguing the government is causing grievous harm to livelihoods, quality of life, etc. The evidence for this is clearer than that for CAGW and its hyped disasters.
I believe there is an urgency in the shrillness of the socialist totalitarians, malthusians and the useful idiots that support them that time is against them. The La Nina seems to be developing more quickly than expected (ENSO has been in a temperature freefall over the past month) and we are already 80% of peak population with a continually declining level of hunger and higher GDP’s in such places as Bangladesh and other former basket case economies. Greening of the planet and gut-buster harvests seem to continue to improve the lot for humans, plants and other creatures. The population is more than double the 1972 end-of-the-world angstfest of the club of Rome and there hasn’t been an Asian famine in decades. The prognostications of the human haters have been diametrically wrong as they have throughout history. Yes, even they see their time is up soon. The actions to kill the fossil fuel industry – the source of prosperity for all, is being done precisely for this reason, that and an effort to impoverish the successful USA before everyone gets to be prosperous without the “guidance” of the elites.
Yes let’s keep their slogan about the First Amendment in mind and for goodness sake, vote for Trump – the only person in the world who does not see the lefty constructs as too big to fail. Don’t worry about his bombastic style – he’s waking up a very large number of disenfranchised people. He will settle down and be taking expert advice from smart people. He runs his businesses that way, too. People are appalled that he would consider looking into NATO (the Cold War is over, so yeah let’s see what use, size, cost we should be considering), the UN, this meeting place for preventing war has grown to become a world government full of the apparatchiks who came out of the east while freedom was supposed to be going in. Look for these one trick ponies in academia, NGOs, government, agencies, “think tanks”, etc. This is their last gasp and it’s going to get uglier before they crash.
Given that RICO prosecutes deliberate fraud, shouldn’t the Republican AG’s be able to prosecute Al, Barrack and all their buddies for pushing AGW in light of the dearth of evidence?
Canada, with 1/10 the population pledged US$5.65 BILLION over the next 5 years to the IMF’s “Green Climate Fund.” The first applicant for IMF money is Robert Mugabe.
Greenpeace, Netherlands, Nov.25, 2014
Greenpeace photo of Naomi Klein at the Greenpeace, Netherlands Office.
http://photo.greenpeace.org/archive/Naomi-Klein-at-Greenpeace-Netherlands-Office-27MZIF3UVFR2.html
This is the last dance for the scary global warming industry . Try and silence freedom of speech and argue the science fiction produced by failed career politician’s . Good luck . At least this way the promoters won’t just be able to slip off into the night as global cooling comes back into fashion .
What is it about leftists and their desire to imprison anyone who disagrees with them.
And when that isn’t enough …
Leftists are basically fascists, when it comes to political opponents. They always want to shut up their opposition. The opposition has no moral standing to them. They are not interested in debating a subject, they just want you to shut up and go along with their agenda.
Leftists generally have a bad case of psychological projection – attributing one’s own faulty intents onto others. In this case, they attribute their own racketeering of a false narrative of catastrophic man-caused global warming onto skeptics who are setting forth the science of natural climate change over decades, centuries, millennia, and eons.
So in the name of global warming, start withholding gasoline and NG from the US market. Lines form, people get really upset and away we go.
I have always said as long as people are well fed and comfortable, they will put up with most anything. Pull the plug or take away the food and the French Revolution starts.