Prosecuting climate chaos skeptics with RICO

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 ( and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death.


newest oldest most voted
Notify of

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.

george e. smith

Well it is quite obvious from those photographs, that those two share the same genes

george e. smith

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.

Richard Keen

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?

Bryan A

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

Nigel S

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.

Johann Wundersamer

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. 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.
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?

Joe Crawford

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.

Bruce Cobb

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.

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.

4 eyes

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.”


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.

The link you posted has about as much credibility as hotwhopper.


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.

Nigel S

Solipsistic slapstick (aka BS)


Solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one’s own mind is sure to exist.
Solipsism isn’t ambitious enough.

Now I do not know whether I was then a man dreaming I was a butterfly, or whether I am now a butterfly, dreaming I am a man. Zhuangzi

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.

Tsk Tsk

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,
Other members of the Tar Sands Solutions Steering Committee have past or present connections to Greenpeace. Or Google
Wikipedia: Susan Turnbull
Former Vice-chair of The Democratic National Committee


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
Or Google


CIGI, Waterloo, ON, Canada
Roger Cox, CIGI Sr. Fellow and Partner at Paulussen Advocaten, Netherlands, “The Dutch Case” 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.
Participants – Key Jurists are listed.


“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 . .

Jean Paul Zodeaux

“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.

Mark T

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”.


“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:
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:
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.

Josh G

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.

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.


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.

John F. Hultquist

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 !

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.

Johann Wundersamer

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?

@ 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.

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!
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.

Gary Pearse

If there is actually really such a particle!

RICO used against climate scientists? Time to have another romp through 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:

Unable to afford proper heat, 40,000 Europeans die of hypothermia during 2014 winter.

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 “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. “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 link in my previous comment, also


it’s what you get from third or fourth hand, motivated regurge of the stats called ‘excess winter deaths’
almost none are hypothermia
the specific causes are mainly:
circulatory diseases, respiratory diseases, dementia and Alzheimer’s disease
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.
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”.
Can an attorney general be personally held liable for the financial repercussions of their idiocy?.
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?

Nigel S

Probably send them up on a hot air balloon at Ivanpah.



Nigel S

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 ( ) 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.

Gloateus Maximus

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.
And lack of concern about global warming is also common in other, less educated countries.

Gary Pearse

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.

Gary Pearse

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.]’


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!

David A

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?
BTW, in case you are unaware, the United Nations is the UN in UNIPCC

Bill Illis

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.

Jim G1

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!

Gary Pearse

““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.

William Grubel

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?

Judy Cross

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.


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.


“The First Amendment does not give you the right to commit fraud.”
Well, everyone knows that … the right to commit fraud is either purchased outright, anointed through elective office, garnered through legal means (see attorney generals recent actions), or allowed indirectly through (government) administrative processes. Although, rights gained through one of the above can be rescinded at almost any time by the remaining three process.
See Hillary (examples abound), Trump (university), Obama (no one has infringed on his right to commit fraud yet), Jagadish Shukla ….


Meanwhile the 1% are living it up in Panama and Switzerland.

Gary Pearse

Yeah, soon it will be zero percent. The west is intent on killing off the few geese who lay golden eggs in the society. Their ‘final’ solution to this is to redistribute until the productive sector is destroyed. Even an ignormamus knows that the other 99% will be even worse off. Economics died a quiet death, too, along with science and productive thought in this crazy new world.


‘The Panama Papers’
11 million leaked financial files from Panama another tax haven.

John Haddock

The intent is highly questionable but more than likely just a political stunt.
Proving fraud and deceit in a court of law is no simple task, especially as there are numerous highly credentialed scientists who can dispute the “consensus”. GCMs are not facts, merely projections, so Exxon can claim that they merely use different projections.
So why pick on Exxon? They have very deep pockets and can defend themselves vigorously. So that means a long drawn out expensive, resource consuming initiative for the AGs. More than likely the initiative will die by the wayside now the AGs have demonstrated their “green” credentials.

Bubba Cow

So why pick on Exxon? that is simple –
think New York and who could imagine cutting off funding to Hildabeast and the next POTUS = The Clinton Foundation


I say bring it on.
In a court of law, only evidence counts…hearsay, innuendo, and logical fallacies do not carry a single iota of weight.
Let’s have a public and court ordered airing of all of the adjustments to the historical climate data-base, the legacy of failed predictions, the falsified global climate models, etc…
Yes, lets see it all become the subject of a legal proceeding.
Good idea…the sooner the better.

Gary Pearse

I have to say I’m a little worried by some of the courts’ decisions on this subject. The left has accumulated an avalanche of activist friendly judges.


Yes, that is a concern.

In a “reasonable” world (never mind “perfect”), your suggestion would be right on point. However the tactic that the left is using in this and similar cases is economic intimidation; defending yourself in court is extremely expensive. (And imagine the adverse publicity that the MSM would inflict). Therefore it is to THEIR benefit to drag this out as long as possible.
The current textbook instance of this is Mann vs Steyn. Mikey has dragged this out 5 years and cost Mark millions, even though Mann does not have a legal leg to stand on. (Of course Mann vs Ball was the trial run and IT is still ongoing.)
The irony of the “fossil fuel funding” meme is that Mark Steyn and Dr Ball are paying for their defense out of their own pockets while Dr Mann (who couldn’t garner even one amicus brief from any scientist or organization) is funded by a mysterious “Climate Science Legal Defense Fund”, a chain of shadow organizations (that I’d bet my house goes back to George Soros). (Is there a “racketeering” investigation here?)
Come to think of it, the second irony (or blatant contradiction) is that Ball and Steyn are the defendants; not Michael. When he asks for donations to his legal DEFENSE fund, isn’t that fraud?


Sheldon is angling for the EPA Director post or maybe Dept. of Justice.

CD in Wisconsin

…….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.”
Well then, it should be the climate alarmists and especially those at NASA and NOAA who are fudging the temperature record that should be shaking in their boots with that statement. Those who know that the CAGW theory is full of holes need to keep a record of this statement from the New York’s AG. Once the fraud of CAGW is exposed, I would be the first one remind him of what he said.

If Republicans would just get out and vote this would all become moot very quickly.
Trump could appoint Professor Judith Curry as National Science Advisor and the big hairy uncertainty monster would stop this leftist pseudo-science in it’s tracks.

Nigel S

From Brewer’s;
‘The notorious “witch-finder” Matthew Hopkins travelled throughout the eastern counties in the 1640s to hunt out witches and is said to have hanged 60 in one year in Essex alone. In 1647 he was tested by his own methods; when cast into the river, he floated, and was hanged as a wizard.’


Nothing but a “pleasing legend” apparently.
“Matthew Hopkins died at his home in Manningtree, Essex, on 12 August 1647, probably of pleural tuberculosis. He was buried a few hours after his death in the graveyard of the Church of St Mary at Mistley Heath.[67] In the words of historian Malcolm Gaskill, Matthew Hopkins “lives on as an anti-hero and bogeyman – utterly ethereal, endlessly malleable”.[68] According to historian Rossell Hope Robbins,[69] Hopkins “acquired an evil reputation which in later days made his name synonymous with fingerman or informer paid by authorities to commit perjury”.[70]
What historian James Sharpe has characterised as a “pleasing legend” grew up around the circumstances of Hopkins’ death, according to which he was subjected to his own swimming test and executed as a witch, but the parish registry at Mistley confirms his burial there.”

Nigel S

Interesting but I’ll take Brewer’s word for it any day over Wiki’s.

Gunga Din

“Hey! We didn’t fund you but you did real research that broke slapshot’s shtick anyway! Now we won’t just sue, we’ll prosecute!!! That’s how political (climate) science is done!”

Smart Rock


Michael Carter

Its interesting to me that these political topics explode with responses within hours of being posted while the science-based topics trickle along and die quickly – many of the legitimate questions raised not being addressed. Different participants too. Not a criticism. An observation


73 comments in 3 hours is light for this site.
I have noted the opposite…the threads where someone purports to have evidence that CAGW is a legitimate concern can have 100 responses in a few tens of minutes.

Gary Pearse

Hopefulness among the worried set.

Bruce Cobb

It is interesting to me that you appear to be a concern troll. Not a criticism, just an observation.

Robert Barry

Look to the BuilerBurg !


“These RICO investigations and prosecutions are chilling, unprecedented and blatantly un-American.”
Substitute “McCarthy’ for “RICO”. Sound familiar?

It is clearly a sign of desperation since they cannot debate the issue. How do they justify data fabrication and record tampering? I never thought I would live to experience what Marxists routinely did in old Russia. The only thing missing is the Gulag and firing squads…so far. Goons like Whitehouse would have been right at home in Stalinist Russia.

Mike M the original

At least there WERE actual spies such as Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, Judith Coplon, Alger Hiss, and Rudolph Abel. Despite McCarthy’s deplorable behavior falsely accusing people his general suspicion of Soviet infiltration was correct. The worst thing about McCarthy was that his grandstanding sucked away resources making it more difficult to catch the real spies.


“and the Heartland Institute (with which I am affiliated), and even independent researchers and analysts (like myself)”
The stupidity… It hurts!

Bruce Cobb

There there. Try educating yourself.


To me it appears someone tries to protect the source the money comes from. If you got other information, let me know.


“To me it appears someone tries to protect the source the money comes from.”
Exactly…thank you for making the point in blunt terms.
And we all know where the big money in the climate game is coming from, and where it is going to…don’t we.
You are looking in the mirror without even realizing it.
So the question for you is: Project much?


People can be independent and be affiliated with organizations. To compare, a contractor working for a company is both an independent contractor and affiliated with the companies they have done work for.
As far as the money, Heartland’s financial documents were stolen and published online a few years ago (by Peter Gleick, who confessed publicly. This was a clear set of federal crimes committed,and was not prosecuted, but I digress). The results of the revelation were underwhelming, with only a few million in income and expenses annually. They are dwarfed by giants such as Greenpeace, much less other the sheer might of the US government’s spending, which is in the 10s of billions annually on “green” energy research and subsidies.
As for oil company income, yes they have a lot. They also spend a lot in their day to day business, and if they spend too much trying to push politics, then they have to answer to their stockholders.


Advocacy organisations (such as Heartland) do not employ independent scientists.


You are splitting hairs and ignoring the point. People are routinely contracted for short terms. This does not jeopardize their description as “independent”, meaning that they are not affiliated with any group.


“knowingly deceiving” is not “freedom of speech”

Paul Penrose

Who’s knowingly deceiving who? The software models that all the CAGW theory depends on were written by people that have little or no training in software engineering. As a 30+ year veteran in the field, I can assure you that is a recipe for bugs. We can’t trust the output of them any more than an uncalibrated piece of lab equipment. You wouldn’t drive across a bridge built by a mathematician, would you?

Johann Wundersamer

Wagen on April 4, 2016 at 4:10 pm
“knowingly deceiving” is not “freedom of speech”
that’s trivial, Wagen – for either side.
Start with linking Your fiscal relevant docs in the next comment.


“These RICO investigations and prosecutions are chilling, unprecedented and blatantly un-American.”
Never heard of McCarthy?

Mike the Morlock

Hi Wagon
Yes I heard of McCarthy.
Now have you ever heard of Kim Philby? The BBC is running a good historical documentary on his betrayal and work with the East Germans.
The threat McCarthy was going after was real.
Watch the BBC production. It might educate you to the times, and the threats free civilizations faced at the time.
Then perhaps you would not make such flawed comparisons.


I brought it up to show that it is not “Un-American”. Americans have experience already.

Mike the Morlock

Still wrong. McCarthy was investigating real treason with a real foreign power which held ill will toward the U.S.A. and was engaged in getting its citizens to become spys.
Alot of the investigations were a result of the Alger Hiss case.
So no the two situations are not the same. McCarthy was intent on exposing a foreign threat; the Rico 20 and Senator Sheldon Whitehouse are intent on suppressing debate. Preventing the American people from hearing -seeing information that may alter their view points.
You need to read more broaden your horizons.

Mark T

I agree that the comparison to McCarthyism as the liberal media would have you belive is apt, however, the comparison as far as the truth of McCartyism is concerned is terrible. Propagating the lie does not help the search for truth. Mike the Morlock is entirely correct on this point. A better analogy, one already mentioned, is the Salem witchcraft trials.


Mike, just because McCarthy was right about there being spies and traitors does not mean he was correct in his methods. Espionage is a crime, and something to be feared. However, he went after people for their political opinions. He tried to bury anyone who had anything nice to say about communism. It is likely that he pushed many sympathizers into treason due to his hamfisted actions. Moreover, he sacrificed the First Amendment in the idea of “protecting America”. However, any patriot knows that if America gives up her ideals, she isn’t worth protecting.
And yes, Wagen, I think this is very much a continuation of the McCarthy style politics, so I will agree that the unprecedented is an inaccurate description.


“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.”
“knowingly deceiving”


Yelling “fire!” In a crowded movie theatre where no fire exits is knowingly deceiving. It could cause real harm to others and is not a “free speech” right.
Expressing a different opinion about what climate will be 100 years from now is not an immediate danger and is a free speech right. No one knows what will happen in 100 years.


“No one knows what will happen in 100 years.”
Correct! All climate projections are made under a scenario (we will continue as we do now; we will slow carbon emissions) and work under a “all else being equal” scenario only (no huge asteroids impact; no super volcanoes coming to live).

Johann Wundersamer

Yes Wagen, start with listing “the Who” in your diverse (we)
Wagen on April 5, 2016 at 4:16 pm
“No one knows what will happen in 100 years.”
Correct! All climate projections are made under a scenario (we will continue as we do now; we will slow carbon emissions) and work under a “all else being equal” scenario only (no huge asteroids impact; no super volcanoes coming to live).


“and implement the goals of a dictatorial United Nations.”
Yes! The UN police force is about to break my front door and they will force me to use wind power!

Some good advice: best to not post, because when you do you look very naive and credulous.
The UN is composed of corrupt bureaucrats from top to bottom, with one goal in mind: to become the world’s de facto governing body. Once that goal is achieved, you can forget your free speech. Or maybe you prefer that free speech should be restricted. In either case, consider some facts:
The Obama Administration is busy constructing FEMA camps capable of housing hundreds of thousands of inmates. Places like that used to be called “concentration camps”.
And if you’re so deluded to the point you want to start labeling people “conspiracy theorists”, read some recent history. In the 1860’s President Lincoln arbitrarily revoked habeas corpus, and imposed martial law. The Supreme Court upheld those actions.
So the precedent is set. All it would take is a terrorist attack… and there’s his excuse. Those voicing opposition or protesting will be ‘detained’ indefinitely. And without habeas corpus, your lawyer won’t do you any good. And the law is alrerady on the books that allows the President to shut down any website he wishes.
With all those tools available, and given the total lack of any ethics or morals in this administration, what do you think? Do you believe the President will be a good boy, and not use them?
I will be surprised if we’re that fortunate.


dbstealey said: ‘The Obama Administration is busy constructing FEMA camps capable of housing hundreds of thousands of inmates. Places like that used to be called “concentration camps”.’
Specifically where are these camps being constructed? Evidence of their existence?

As usual, you want me to do your homework for you. I’ve posted those links before, and as usual anyone who disagrees just argues, deflects, makes accusations of ‘conspiracy theory’, and in general responds like you.
Here’s a thought: do your own searches, using the appropriate keywords. You will find the answers. But you won’t like the answers, because you’re nothing if not naive. You exist in your own blog bubble, gravitating to those blogs that reinforce your belief system. Then you come here, trying to convince readers more intelligent than you that CO2 is the control knob of global temperatures, and other falsified nonsense.
You’re making no headway here, Chris. Readers of this “Best Science” site are too well educated in the hard sciences to fall for the climate alarmist narrative. If you were a smart guy, you would have seen that by now.

Johann Wundersamer

Chris ,
FEMA camps capable of housing hundreds of thousands of inmates. Places like that used to be called “concentration camps”.
You think an army corps can’t handle it’s data bank ?

Johann Wundersamer

Of construction material and erection Plans?


“to rid the world of fossil fuels”
There is “war on drugs”, there is “war on terror”, what is so special about “war on fossil fuels”?

Bruce Cobb

Depends. How stupid are you?


I am that stupid that I think that it is easier to get rid of fossil fuels than it is to get rid of drugs or terrorism.

Mark T

Ah, that stupid… indeed.

“I am that stupid…”
Without a doubt.


Wagen, pay attention.
Illicit drugs are enormously harmful to people who use them and to the people around them.
Terrorism, in all it’s forms is enormously harmful to everybody anywhere near it.
Fossil fuels have lifted huge chunks of the world’s peoples out of bronze age, or stone age poverty.
One of these things is different. One of these things is not like the other two.


“Alcohol is enormously harmful to people who use them and to the people around them.”
So what?


Why are you using “fossil fuels”?


Oil, coal and gas.




To get to work. I wish the bus company would use electric busses fueled by the water power that is abundent here.

Mike M the original

Why go to war on something that has brought so much benefit?


Drugs benefit many people! Why fight them 🙂

David L. Hagen

35 year climate model predictions ONLY 300% Too Hot compared to reality of mid tropospheric tropical temperatures by Satellite & Balloon measurements. See John Christy’s 2nd February 2016 Testimony to Congress Fig. on page 13.

comment image


Incompletely characterized and unwieldy. So, we define the scientific domain in limited frames of reference to explain our observations with accuracy inversely proportional to time and space offsets from an established reference. Faith, axioms, and guesses are accepted with increasing correlation between observations and consensus.
That said, I wonder if science will receive a fair hearing in a land instructed by gods from the twilight zone, or in modern jurisprudence, emanations from a penumbra. What do the oracles proclaim?


The current warming up from the Little Ice Age is very similar to the warm up from the Dark Ages Cooling Period that occurred about 1300 years ago. Models have been generated that show that the climate change we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans and Mankind does not have the power to change it. Despite all the claims, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate. There is no such evidence in the paleoclimate record. There is evidence that warmer temperatures cause more CO2 to enter the atmosphere but there is no evidence that this additional CO2 causes any more warming. If additional greenhouse gases caused additional warming then the primary culprit would have to be H2O which depends upon the warming of just the surfaces of bodies of water and not their volume but such is not part of the AGW conjecture. In other words CO2 increases in the atmosphere as huge volumes of water increase in temperature but more H2O enters the atmosphere as just the surface of bodies of water warm. We live in a water world where the majority of the Earth’s surface is some form of water.
The AGW theory is that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes an increase in its radiant thermal insulation properties causing restrictions in heat flow which in turn cause warming at the Earth’s surface and the lower atmosphere. In itself the effect is small because we are talking about small changes in the CO2 content of the atmosphere and CO2 comprises only about .04% of dry atmosphere if it were only dry but that is not the case. Actually H2O, which averages around 2%, is the primary greenhouse gas. The AGW conjecture is that the warming causes more H2O to enter the atmosphere which further increases the radiant thermal insulation properties of the atmosphere and by so doing so amplifies the effect of CO2 on climate. At first this sounds very plausible. This is where the AGW conjecture ends but that is not all what must happen if CO2 actually causes any warming at all.
Besides being a greenhouse gas, H2O is also a primary coolant in the Earth’s atmosphere transferring heat energy from the Earth;s surface to where clouds form via the heat of vaporization. More heat energy is moved by H2O via phase change then by both convection and LWIR absorption band radiation combined. More H2O means that more heat energy gets moved which provides a negative feedback to any CO2 based warming that might occur. Then there is the issue of clouds. More H2O means more clouds. Clouds not only reflect incoming solar radiation but they radiate to space much more efficiently then the clear atmosphere they replace. Clouds provide another negative feedback. Then there is the issue of the upper atmosphere which cools rather than warms. The cooling reduces the amount of H2O up there which decreases any greenhouse gas effects that CO2 might have up there. In total, H2O provides negative feedback’s which must be the case because negative feedback systems are inherently stable as has been the Earth’s climate for at least the past 500 million years, enough for life to evolve. We are here. The wet lapse rate being smaller then the dry lapse rate is further evidence of H2O’s cooling effects.
The entire so called, “greenhouse” effect that the AGW conjecture is based upon is at best very questionable. A real greenhouse does not stay warm because of the heat trapping effects of greenhouse gases. A real greenhouse stays warm because the glass reduces cooling by convection. This is a convective greenhouse effect. So too on Earth..The surface of the Earth is 33 degrees C warmer than it would be without an atmosphere because gravity limits cooling by convection. This convective greenhouse effect is observed on all planets in the solar system with thick atmospheres and it has nothing to do with the LWIR absorption properties of greenhouse gases. the convective greenhouse effect is calculated from first principals and it accounts for all 33 degrees C. There is no room for an additional radiant greenhouse effect. Our sister planet Venus with an atmosphere that is more than 90 times more massive then Earth’s and which is more than 96% CO2 shows no evidence of an additional radiant greenhouse effect. The high temperatures on the surface of Venus can all be explained by the planet’s proximity to the sun and its very dense atmosphere. The radiant greenhouse effect of the AGW conjecture has never been observed. If CO2 did affect climate then one would expect that the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years would have caused an increase in the natural lapse rate in the troposphere but that has not happened. Considering how the natural lapse rate has changed as a function of an increase in CO2, the climate sensitivity of CO2 must equal 0.0.
OK, all that being said then take me to court for my taking a more scientific approach to the climate system.
The Ptolemaic model of the universe was once the consensus of science. If consensus defines scientific fact then all those that do not believe in the Ptolemaic model of the universe should be taken to court and charged with fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud.

“The Ptolemaic model of the universe was once the consensus of science. If consensus defines scientific fact then all those that do not believe in the Ptolemaic model of the universe should be taken to court and charged with fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud.”
Yes indeedy …. however the date is not AD150 is it?
Mankind has moved on a tad scientifically since then. Or don’t you agree?
In other words that argument is specious.
It absolutely does not apply now given the knowledge Man has acquired since.


If fact is fact then it is always fact no matter how much time has gone by. If the “scientific consensus” of the past turned the Ptolemaic model of the universe into fact then the Ptolemaic model should still be scientific fact today. But in reality “scientific consensus” is really an oxymoron because science is not a democracy. Theories of science are not validated by a democratic process. The laws of science are not some form of legislation. Just because a theory is, at one time, popular among a specific set of individuals does not mean that it in any way has become fact. I myself think that it is terrible the way Man is burning up the Earth’s very finite resources of fossil fuels just as quickly as possible and I would like to add the AGW conjecture as another reason to conserve but the AGW conjecture is just too full of holes for me to support. It is a matter of science. The arguments against the AGW conjecture are all grounded in science. People who do not believe in the religion of AGW should not be labeled as heretics and punished for some form of blasphemy as if the AGW conjecture were the law of the land.

Johann Wundersamer

Now the model
Toneb on April 5, 2016 at 1:10 pm
“The Ptolemaic model of the universe was once the consensus of science. If consensus defines scientific fact then all those that do not believe in the Ptolemaic model of the universe should be taken to court and charged with fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud.”
How many charged you estimated?
And yes, Ptolemaic and RICO are
perfect equivalents.

Glorifying obvious political grandstanding with a superficial legal veneer is unbecoming this site. Remember only 4 of the 16 on the podium said they would join Schneiderman. Remember Schneiderman launched in an election year, using selected out of context materials from one biased wamunist blog.
Not unimportant. But will not end well for warmunists persuing the Big Tobacco RICO analogy propounded by Oreskes. Wrong is wrong.


Why is Ted Cruz never mentioned in these RICO actions? And Donald Trump?
Surely they (particularly Cruz) have made enough public statements against the CAGW concept that they should be pursued by the warmists. Since the whole case is political, why don’t they go whole hog?


I am somewhat confused here.
Won’t it be a good thing if these court cases proceed?
Won’t the accused put the entire scam “onto the witness stand” and shred it?
Isn’t this what we want: put Mann and others into the witness box?
Am I wrong in thinking these prosecutions are a good thing?

Paul Penrose

They have no intention of taking it to court. The threat, they are hoping, is enough to silence at least some of their critics. Defending ones self against Federal charges can be very expensive. For companies especially, it may be cheaper to issue a public apology and donate money to the “correct” cause(s). Yes, this is basically an attempt at extortion. Unprecedented you say? Think back on the last big tobacco lawsuits; those were just big cash grabs too.


“Think back on the last big tobacco lawsuits; those were just big cash grabs too.”
No, those were lawsuits against companies for illegal behavior, for saying cigarettes were safe when their own research indicated they were not. Take another present day example. Say a drug company develops a diabetes drug that has some bad side effects that don’t become apparent for many years. Is it OK for them to tell the world that their drug is safe, even though their own research says it is not?

Are you really that credulous? Yes, some tobacco companies lied. Not as much as, say, Obama or Hillary. But really, is a lie worth more than $200 billion? And did that money go to the people who got sick from smoking? Nope, not a dime. The government took it all.
Smokers always knew they were doing something unhealthy. Mark Twain even commented about it. But he thought the tradeoff was worth it. Just like folks today.
If the states and feds really wanted to punish the tobacco companies, throwing a few CEO’s in the penitentiary would have had a bigger effect. As it is, that tobacco settlement cost was just passed on to consumers.
The same with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The day after it happened, and before anyone knew there were any safety violations, Obama stated that “Twenty billion dollars” was the figure he had in mind. Guess what? That issue was just settled — for $20 billion.
But of course if you’re the government, destroying the beautiful Animas river has no consequences at all. Not one EPA bureaucrat was fired, or even demoted. Or even given a meaningless letter of reprimand.
Governments have become corrupt organized crime rackets. They don’t throw people in jail because their interest is in extorting as much loot as they can. Jails cost money. But accidents, or any other pretext, can be used to extort money from companies. As much money as possible.
Do you honestly believe that a government that uses the IRS to go after groups for their entirely legal political activities would draw the line at squeezing money from companies, using any pretext they can come up with?
Most folks are not nearly that naive.


The tobacco lawsuits are shaky, and arguably unethical. The critical point being that they didn’t have exclusive knowledge of these effects, and they ended up paying for harming our health by selling more products that harm our health (in short, it makes no sense that they were fined but not shut down, and it makes less sense the more you think about it).
However, they at least paid doctors to research the health effects of tobacco and then buried the research when it gave the answers they didn’t want. Here, the best they have is that Exxon had some speculation about something outside their field of expertise and then didn’t follow up. That is literally it.

Alan Robertson

Has the entire politi- climate fiasco been driven this far by the search for truth, or because of the money and power at stake?
Has anything changed, or will it, because of threatened court proceedings?
The puppet masters are quite adaptable, wouldn’t you agree?