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.

275 thoughts on “Prosecuting climate chaos skeptics with RICO

  1. 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

      • 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.

      • 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 $$$$)?

      • 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

      • 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. 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?

      • 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.

      • 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.”

      • @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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

    • 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.

    • 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.

    • 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:
      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.

    • 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,
      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.
      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]

  2. 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.

  3. 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 !

      • 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.

  4. 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?

      • @ 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.)

  5. This is a good time to start looking into how each state handles proceeds from AG settlements.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

      • 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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?

  10. 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?

  11. 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!

  12. 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.

    • 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.

    • 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.

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

  13. 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.

    • “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.

  14. 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!

  15. ““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.

  16. 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?

  17. 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.

  18. 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 .

  19. 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.

  20. 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.

  21. “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 ….

    • 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.

  22. 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.

  23. 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.

    • 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.

    • 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?

  24. …….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.

  25. 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.

  26. 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.”

  27. “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!”

  28. 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.

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

  29. “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.

    • 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.

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

      • 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.

      • 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.

    • Wagen,
      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?

    • 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.

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

    • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

  32. “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).

      • 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).

  33. “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!

    • Wagen,
      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?

        • Chris,
          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.

      • 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 ?

  34. “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”?

  35. 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?

  36. 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.

      • 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.

  37. 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.

  38. 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?

  39. 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?

    • William,
      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?

      • Chris,
        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.

    • William,
      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?

  40. Why has climate science become so defensive, the reason l think is because there is a growing awareness within the climate science that they have made the wrong call about the importance of CO2 in climate change. But with all the money and ego that has been put into AGW they are unable to admit it. The loss for them would be to great.
    For anyone who has taken a serious interest in climate must have by now know there is serious doubts about the importance of CO2 role within it.

    • You are exactly correct. After all of this, can we not use the RICO laws to likewise prosecute politicians (like Gore and company) for distributing false information. How can NOAA and other government agencies continue to publish temperature data that does not account for the Urban Heat Island Effect (UHI), when many of the “official” temperature gauges are placed where the UHI is dominant and can affect the temperature readings by multiple degrees when they are attempting to validate tenths of degree changes??

    • Good comment.
      I think that also explains why many of those who cling to and promote the desired conclusion and reject outright and vilify anything and anyone that questions that sacred conclusion, are no longer considered to be honest scientist. They are more like “climate change whores” than real “climate scientist”.

  41. “The First Amendment does not give you the right to commit fraud.” Odd the AGW mob should use that argument since they are the ones committing fraud and extortion. Turn the RICO gun against them – turnabout is fair play. Besides Whitehouse even looks like a dork.

  42. When are skeptics going to counter this fraud with a RICO suit of our own? If anyone is in violation of RICO it is clearly those who are using a proven false “consensus” argument and spending exorbitant CAGW taxpayer funds, obtained largely due to these false consensus claims, on themselves. Not only has the “consensus” been refuted in multiple peer reviewed publications; independent international peer reviewed publications have repeatedly shown that there is no consensus supporting CAGW. The science of global warming need not be addressed at all. (As we now know the courts will not attempt to judge the quality of the science.) Countersuits should be filed by those being sued and harassed. Serious damages should be sought. That may be the only way to stop this, but choose a competent court and jurisdiction in which to do this.

    • I think you’re right, Dan. The main “defendants” in this RICO case – when it is established who they are – should get together and launch a counter claim. And I would bet anything that, when the bullying by the AGW crowd was widely publicized, the counter claimants would receive enormous support from the public, never mind all of us skeptics. Nobody, but nobody, likes a bully.

    • It would be interesting if the Republican AsG would do this as a countersuit. Would the Federal AG ask the FBI to look into it? Or would it kill the whole stupid mess?

    • What organization has the funds? The biggest that might support this is Heartland, and their intake is peanuts compared to the Big Green, much less the endless funds available to the feds.
      The oil companies won’t do it because they don’t want to paint a target on their backs. It would be a PR nightmare. Plus, even if they win, they will still lose. All the EPA has to do is perform vindictive inspections. No compliance program can survive intense enough scrutiny; the web of regulations are just too complex (just like no tax report will survive a deep enough audit). No one wants to do this. In fact, the only thing that would possibly motivate them to take such a risk is this sort of investigation, as they now have nothing to lose.
      Given the fact that they would be moving against political correctness and public opinion, it would be a huge uphill battle with next to no financial backing. There just aren’t any deep pockets willing to support the skeptic side of things.

  43. Would love to see this actually go to trial. Don’t think for a minute that is the purpose of this whole bluff and bully charade as the alarmists will never allow it. It would mean the skeptics would finally see some of that oil money actually used to put the whole AGW myth to bed.

  44. Ex left wing Prime Minister of Australia, Ms Gillard set the scene with her $1,100,000 fine for anyone speaking out against her carbon tax. Who cares about free speech anyway?

  45. “The First Amendment does not give you the right to commit fraud.”
    Tell it to the climate science charlatans at NASA and NOAA. Those guys are government-funded fraudsters.

  46. Mike Jonas wrote: “(c) manipulate an enterprise for purposes of engaging in, concealing, or benefiting from racketeering activity, (d) conspire to violate (a), (b) or (c) above.
    I would say the climate science charlatans at NASA and NOAA are doing just this with their fraudulent manipulations of the surface temperture record. They do benefit from this fraud.

  47. Whitehouse, Al Gore and his RICO Attorney Generals who enjoy vacations, sex slaves and Off-shore money laundering accounts in the Virgin Islands, may be in the Mossack Fonseca list. Disney COO Thomas Staggs is opting OUT and FAST. One Will he go to Argentina! News services asked, “Where are the Americans?” Indeed! May there be another stash to hit the fan in a few days. [The October Surprise!?] Lovely to see Tim Cook crying about his hundreds of Billions in China dwindling away at the evil hands of the exchange rate that he can’t get! Even trying to pander used iPhone 5s in India with kickbacks to dealers and Government Officials in India and China to use the used iPhone 5s as drug “Dollar … $100,000 Wilson GC notes” mules is not going through as Timmy [Genus Bar] planned. Dreary dreary, Teary Teary, Wimpy Wimpy.
    Ha ha

  48. As your friendly neighbourhood environmental scientist I gotta say, this article is pretty far removed from the world as it actually is. But quite entertaining. So you win some and lose some I guess.

    • Dear benben, what success have your models had representing ‘the world as it actually is’?

      • well, I’m an environmental scientist, not an atmospheric physicist . But I’m going to a seminar tomorrow to have myself updated on the latest. So ask me again next time!

    • benben,
      You are far removed from reality. You are no scientist — at least, not an honest scientist. Because an honest scientist is a skeptic, first and foremost. And you are no skeptic.
      You’ve bought into the “dangerous man-mande global warming” canard, without a scrap of credible evidence.
      You would have made a very good Nazi propagandist, benben. But an honest scientist? No. You don’t have what it takes.

    • benben, where have you been? Drive by substance free comments reflect poorly on those who post them. Better to be specific if you have anything to say.

      • so I went, and she says: ” I don’t now the source of the time series that having provided, but the observations in gavin’s figure vs Christy’s figure do not look similar in terms of time variation. I have no idea how to explain this.”
        Not the most helpful discussion 😉
        Anyway, there are a thousand ways to draw data, but in general it’s pretty clear the models are good enough for what we use them for (to give the general direction of a trend). All the handwringing on this site about how the models absolutely not come even close to reality are just not reflective of what’s actually going on.

      • It was me benben:
        Yes – pretty damn good aren’t they?
        But the job of GCM’s isn’t to predict global temps as they are dependent of the forcings that are present in the future – that graph is updated to show forcing that actually occurred after the models were run.
        They are projections and climate science learns and refines – this is done routinely with NWP models.

        • Toneb says:
          …the job of GCM’s isn’t to predict global temps…
          Good thing, that. Because they’re always wrong.
          When something that costs multi-millions is always wrong, it’s time to scrap it.

      • “They do pretty well…”
        Wait a bit more for some fine tuning and the match will be perfect.

      • benben – Check the date on which the CMIP5 calc was run. You will find that it is a recent run, in other words a hindcast not a prediction. The sharp dip in 1993 is the clue – there is no way a pre-1993 model run could have predicted Pinatubo. The model run is a retrofit, so of course it will give a good match. If you want to check model prediction against actual temperatures from 1975 onwards, you need to use a model run that was done no later than 1975.

      • “Good thing, that. Because they’re always wrong.
        When something that costs multi-millions is always wrong, it’s time to scrap it.”
        If you say so db … it’s obviously correct.

      • Mod, no problem. Skeptic it is. However, could you then also please stop certain people from comparing me to Nazi’s? You must agree that that is much more offensive than to use the term denier. Much appreciated!
        [Reply: It’s all in the site Policy page. Please read up on the labels that are not allowed. Otherwise, we lean toward free speech. -mod]

      • Other Ben, that’s CMIP5. That graph is almost completely hindcast. (I think the actual start is 2005). Taking from that point, there’s effectively no prediction due to the huge swath of error.
        Anyone can make predictions about the past. It’s predictions on the future that are difficult.

  49. @Slipstick first post
    Do you seriously think modern man will entertain another medieval inquisition? Not going to happen my friend.

    • Can’t resist… nobody expects the inquisition, maybe not the medieval one, but modern man — same as the olden man. The institutions are no longer medieval (here), but all good things could come to an end. This should not be looked on as a test of Exxon, but rather as a test of our legal system.
      Apropos, watch the DVD of the Russian movie Leviathan. It’s not about whales.
      One reviewer from Rotten Tomatoes says: “Leviathan is an angry/mournful look at how the system – any system – works to grind down the little guy.” The legality (not justice) of it is rather breathtaking.

    • sure they will – ‘war on drugs’ is one of those currently declining in fashion (obama recently gave amnesty to 160+ prisoners, the majority of whom were doing life sentences for possession of potions)
      in queue and growing every more popular is ‘war of social justice’ – playing out at a university near you.
      serfdom and domination was simply not eradicated by the industrial revolution.
      the medieval caste system may have got a boob job but still stands over you to pee.

  50. Would the prosecution have to prove that AGW is true beyond a reasonable doubt in order to establish that statements skeptical of AGW were fraudulent? Sounds like a case it would be good to be a defendant in.

  51. I never saw any serious AGW done buy an oil company.. My wife worked for Exxon Research when they were working out the paleo-sealevel curve, and CO2 was simply not looked into. We assumed the advance and retreat of glaciers the cause of sea level changes, but did not worry in least why those glaciers did what they did. We only worried about how the sea level changes affected the distribution of sediments.

      • Funded, sure, but private internal research, no, just some opinions written from a review of existing research.

      • Doug, that is incorrect. They had a large internal research team. From a detailed story on this: “the company launched its own extraordinary research into carbon dioxide from fossil fuels and its impact on the earth. Exxon’s ambitious program included both empirical CO2 sampling and rigorous climate modeling. It assembled a brain trust that would spend more than a decade deepening the company’s understanding of an environmental problem that posed an existential threat to the oil business.”

        • Chris,
          That article is hogwash. Anyone reading this site for any length of time knows that there are literally tens of thousands of scientists and engineers who understand the science, and disagree with that kind of alarmist pablum. They’re asking readers to give up their common sense, and to believe that every scientist and petroleum engineer at Exxon has lost their mental capacity, and bought into the notion that CO2 is the control knob of global temperatures.
          Maybe you have credulous pals who would believe that carp. But don’t try to sell it here. We know better.
          From that link, Exxon…
          …made a strategic decision in the late 1980s to publicly emphasize doubt and uncertainty regarding climate change science even as its internal research embraced the growing scientific consensus.
          Do you think maybe they were sincere in “emphasizing doubt and uncertainty”? Another way of saying that would be: ‘Exxon was practicing the most basic requirement of science: skepticism’.
          And in the 1980’s the term was “runaway global warming”, usually followed by “climate catastrophe”. You know; the stuff your side is always promoting. Then it morphed into “climate change” when it became obvious that despite the steady rise of CO2, the global warming predictions were flat wrong.
          One thing we know for certain that climate alarmists are not, and that is scientific skeptics. None of them are skeptics. That’s why the author mentions the bogus “consensus”: because there’s no solid evidence to support the CO2=CAGW scare. There wasn’t in the ’80’s, and there isn’t now. That should make you extremely skeptical of the AGW scare. But since you’re no skeptic, you just head-nod along with the Narrative.
          That article is just pablum for unthinking head-nodders.

      • dbstealey said “That article is hogwash.”
        You call yourself a scientist, but that is not the case. A real scientist will include evidence to support his/her points of disagreement. You’ve done none of that. The article gives a number of examples of specific research activities carried out by Exxon, and names some of the people involved.
        In 10 seconds of searching, I found another document that mentions the same individuals, and has more detail on Exxon’s research programs. It also mentions the outside groups they collaborated with.
        Saying the words hogwash is not science, that’s just lazy debating.

      • Chris says:
        A real scientist will include evidence to support his/her points of disagreement. You’ve done none of that.
        Wrong as usual. I constantly include facts, evidence, links, charts, measurements, and plenty of other hard science arguments. I also answer questions (except when someone demands that I do their homework for them).
        But in general the alarmist clique never answers questions. You are a case study in that, deflecting onto other things rather than answering my questions. Because you know that if you honestly and sincerely answered my questions and follow-up questions, your climate alarmism would be easily demolished.
        And your “real scientist” definition is simply more deflection. A real scientist is a skeptic, first and foremost. But you are no skeptic. Rather, you’re a true believer in the alarmist narrative and talking points.
        As a true skeptic I am constantly questioning your beliefs. I am constantly asking you to produce verifiable measurements, but you never do. You can’t, because there are no credible measurements of AGW. Personally, I think AGW exists. But it is such a minuscule forcing that it can be completely disregarded. It is a non-problem. But your crusade is to try and make it a big scare. That isn’t working. “Climate change” is the very last item that Americans are concerned about. We know it’s a non-problem.
        Finally, labeling your linked article as “hogwash” is accurate. It is partisan pseudo-science. It pretends that Exxon’s thousands of scientists and engineers have mindlessly bought into the “consensus” that CO2 is the control knob of global temperatures — without any empirical, testable, verifiable measurements.
        No one in their right mind would agree with such a preposterous statement. But you obviously do. Why? Because you’re just another uneducated head-nodder, without a shred of scientific skepticism.

  52. Oil companies’ products have VASTLY improved: worldwide GDP, technological advancement, longevity, crop yields (through cheap petrochemical fertilizers/insecticides), per capita incomes, disposable incomes, living standards, wages, productivity, efficiency, poverty rates, literacy rates, economic development, medical advancements, etc., etc., etc.,
    Rather than expressing gratitude to oil companies for the VAST contributions they’ve made to humanity, Leftist political hacks demonize them and threaten to destroy all the tremendous benefits oil companies have provided…
    All feckless Leftist government hacks can do is to make our lives miserable and steal/waste our money….
    Oil companies aren’t “hiding” any risks of catastrophic CO2 induced global warming because there is nothing to “hide”; CAGW is already a disconfirmed hypothesis…
    It would be like Leftist government hacks suing airline companies for endangering passengers’ lives for flying off the edge of the earth, with the erroneous government assumption that the earth is flat….
    Kleptocratic government hacks are the biggest organized crime families on earth. Perhaps RICO should be directed at feckless government hacks that have ruined our lives and our livelihoods, rather than at oil companies that have vastly improved them…

  53. Like the PDO / AMO ocean oscillations, whose effects on climate are fraudulently peddled as AGW, it seems that global fasc1sm rises and falls with a 60-80 year period. Now the USA is the flag bearer of outright unashamed eco-fasc1sm. Sheldon should be compared not to Torquemada but to Andrei Vyshinsky.

    • OK:
      “…. the PDO / AMO ocean oscillations, whose effects on climate are fraudulently peddled as AGW”
      Please explain how it is if that were the case, the climate system would have to be continually lifting itself up by its own braces and causing a continual warming trend?
      You are saying that natural cycles that are inherent in the climate system are causing chronic warming (this through several +ve/-ve cycles).
      But didn’t happen before post industrial times.

      • But didn’t happen before post industrial times.
        A perfect example of a mass delusion. There is nothing happening with global T that is either unusual, or unprecedented. Nothing.
        Everything happening now has happened before, and to a much greater degree. So your statement is provably wrong.

  54. Paul, fundamental point!
    An attorney launching RICO attacks ought to bring severe proof.
    What proof bring the ‘under RICO’ attacking attorneys supporting their case.
    Good question, thanks – Hans

  55. The biggest obstacle is that no one has shown any harm from warming or more CO2. Both are better for life on earth.

  56. ‘They overstate the climate’s sensitivity to carbon dioxide and methane, atmospheric gases chosen because they result from fossil fuel use.’
    -> They overstate the climate’s sensitivity to carbon dioxide and methane, atmospheric gases DELIBARETLY chosen because they result from fossil fuel use.

  57. “If companies are “committing fraud,” by “knowingly deceiving” the public about the threat of man-made carbon dioxide emissions and climate change…”
    This so called “fraud “can work both ways. If NOAA and the alarmist AGW scientists are knowingly deceiving the public by telling them only global warming news and risks and failing to tell them that their own country, their own North American continent and other global land areas have actually been cooling recently and that this could continue for decades more and that this can cause significantly different climate risks , is that not public” deception”. If you withhold vital climate information from the public about all climate risks are you not” knowingly deceiving” the public ?
    Trend of Contiguous US seasonal temperature anomalies since 1998 to 2015

  58. I wonder how many of the 18 attorney generals live in cooling regions of US and what is their state telling their public about whether global warming exists in their own region and whether global warming or cooling poses a greater risk. . This could come back to haunt them like Prof. Shukla found out.
    Regional trend of US Annual temperature anomalies since 1998 including 2015 numbers
    6 out of 9 climate regions show a cooling trend
    • OHIO VALLEY -0.7 F/decade
    • UPPER MIDWEST -1.2 F/decade
    • NORTH EAST -0.2F/decade
    • NORTHWEST +0.4 F/decade
    • SOUTH -0.4 F/decade
    • SOUTHEAST -0.1 F/decade
    • SOUTHWEST +0.1 F/decade
    • WEST +1 F/decade
    • NORTHERN ROCKIES & PLAINS -0.5 F/decade
    ALL data is from NOAA CLIMATE AT A GLANCE web page

  59. Slipstick on April 4, 2016 at 1:19 pm
    Wow, has this story been spun. The “prosecution”, if that ever occurs, would be spinning ……. that these actions are directed at climate change skeptics in general.
    Slipstick on April 4, 2016 at 1:19 pm
    Wow, ……. I have not seen anything ……. that indicates that these actions are directed at climate change skeptics in general.
    Slipstick, whom You think You are fooling.
    About sticks in your Slip?

  60. Slipstick,
    Lynch doesn’t know squat about global warming and, unlike the emptyheaded Obama, she knows that she doesn’t know squat.
    Slipstick on April 4, 2016 at 1:54 pm
    The FBI is the investigative arm of the Justice Department. To what other entity should she have referred the Congressional request?
    The FBI is the investigative arm to referre to a congressional request concerning
    – global warming.
    That’s why people search for green slipsticks.
    First sticking Fast slipping is Yours – no?

  61. If ‘climate science’ as promoted by Gore etc were as sound as claimed, it would be beyond contention and there would be no need for any prosecutions.

  62. That inquisition was evolutionary – kind of like Lenin 1897-nagant effect. Zealots always fly toward the candle. The number one adviser to Lenin Stalin, mr nagant.

  63. “Aestheticism and radicalism must lead us to jettison reason, and to replace it by a desperate hope for political miracles. This irrational attitude which springs from intoxication with dreams of a beautiful world is what I call Romanticism. It may seek its heavenly city in the past or in the future; it may preach ‘back to nature’ or ‘forward to a world of love and beauty’; but its appeal is always to our emotions rather than to reason. Even with the best intentions of making heaven on earth it only succeeds in making it a hell – that hell which man alone prepares for his fellow-men.”
    ― Karl Popper, The Open Society and its Enemies

  64. Slipstick has it bad. The science underlying the “link between C02 and global warming” is a glaringly open question, so how can a person or company be guilty of ‘burying’ or ‘discrediting’ it?

      • In a laboratory, isolated from Ma’ Gaia, some of who’s offspring seem to like to “eat” CO2. Producing food.
        What CO2 might do and what actual harm Man’s CO2 isdoing out there in the Big Wide World are two different things.
        If Man is causing it, are longer growing seasons for food crops a bad thing?
        Beachfront property moves inland? So what. It won’t be a tsunami. Worst case people have, what, 50? 100? years to move?
        But some don’t want to wait 50 or 100 years to profit from Man’s CO2.
        Hence the RICO threat against any who would turn off the spigot.

      • Toneb,
        Your link has been demolished by what the Real World is demonstrating: there is no connection between the rise in CO2 and global T.
        Either the CO2=DAGW conjecture is right, or Planet Earth is right. But they cannot both be right.
        So who should we believe?
        Planet Earth? Or the alarmist Narrative?
        Your entire argument is predicated on the belief that a rise in CO2 is dangerous. But reality shows that the rise in CO2 is completely harmless, and very beneficial to the biosphere.
        Thus, you lose the debate. Science wins.

      • Then where do you put the green house effect when you calculate the temperature of some gas, Toneb?
        It’s the simplest phase of matter – so when you calculate the temperature of atmospheric air, what is the constant you include, that accounts for the GHG effect?
        We’ll all wait for you to go get that.
        Take your time.
        Be very clear when you describe the simplest of computations in the simplest phase of matter, you claim you’re some kind of meteorological lifer.
        Prove it.

        April 5, 2016 at 2:20 pm
        “the “link between C02 and global warming” is a glaringly open question”
        “No it’s glaringly proved empirical science first known of ~150 ya.

  65. If the Justice Department doesn’t prosecute the Clinton Foundation with RICO violations AG Loretta Lynch shames and disgraces herself forever.

  66. I believe one of the “harms” being claimed by the AGs is that Exxon and others did not reveal the risks to stockholders of climate change for the oil business. But the laws about revealing such risks (including regulatory risks) is new so it would need a time machine to know about the law before it was passed. Furthermore, Exxon HAS revealed the risks of both climate change and new regulations for their business in their filings in recent years.
    The idea that saying something that is false (assuming arguing against climate catastrophe is false) is “fraud” is to enter Alice in Wonderland territory for the meanings of words. If anything, companies these days rarely speak out on public issues lest they be called in to a congressional hearing, and if anything Exxon has heavily supported basic research on climate, the AGU, and even alarmists.

  67. “…the catechism of climate cataclysm.” Seriously not cute. Nail you tongue to your lower jaw next time.

Comments are closed.