Al Gore, Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat AGs threaten to silence and bankrupt skeptics
Guest opinion by Paul Driessen
It’s been a rough stretch for Climate Armageddon religionists and totalitarians.
Real World science, climate and weather events just don’t support their manmade cataclysm narrative. The horrid consequences of anti-fossil fuel energy policies are increasingly in the news. And despite campaigns by the $1.5-trillion-per-year government-industry-activist-scientific Climate Crisis Consortium, Americans consistently rank global warming at the very bottom of their serious concerns.
But instead of debating their critics, or marshaling a more persuasive, evidence-based case that we really do face a manmade climate catastrophe, alarmists have ramped up their shrill rhetoric, imposed more anti-hydrocarbon edicts by executive fiat and unratified treaty – and launched RICO attacks on their critics.
Spurred on by Senator Sheldon “Torquemada” Whitehouse (D-RI), Jagadish Shukla and his RICO-20 agitators, and their comrades, 16 of the nation’s 18 Democratic attorneys general (the other 32 are Republican) announced on March 29 that they are going after those who commit the unpardonable offense of questioning “consensus” climate science.
If companies are “committing fraud,” by “knowingly deceiving” the public about the threat of man-made carbon dioxide emissions and climate change, New York AG Eric Schneiderman intoned, “we want to expose it and pursue them to the fullest extent of the law,” under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. “The First Amendment does not give you the right to commit fraud.”
Their initial target is ExxonMobil, but other companies, think tanks like CFACT and the Heartland Institute (with which I am affiliated), and even independent researchers and analysts (like myself) will be in their crosshairs – using a law intended for the Mafia. Incredibly, even United States Attorney General Loretta Lynch says her office has “discussed” similar actions and has “referred [the matter] to the FBI.”
These RICO investigations and prosecutions are chilling, unprecedented and blatantly un-American. They abuse our legal and judicial processes and obliterate the First Amendment freedom of speech rights of anyone who questions the catechism of climate cataclysm. The AGs’ actions are intended to browbeat skeptics into silence, and bankrupt them with monumental legal fees, fines and treble damages.
It is the campus “crime” of “unwelcome ideas” and “micro-aggression” on steroids. It is the inevitable result of President Obama’s determination to “fundamentally transform” the United States, ensure that electricity rates “necessarily skyrocket,” and carve his energy and climate policy legacy in granite.
Mr. O and his allies are on a mission: to rid the world of fossil fuels, replace them with “clean” biofuels (that are also carbon-based and also emit carbon dioxide when burned, but would require billions of acres of crop and habitat land) and “eco-friendly” bird-killing wind turbines and solar installations (that will require millions more acres) – and implement the goals of a dictatorial United Nations.
Former executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change Christiana Figueres put it in the bluntest terms: “We are setting ourselves the task of intentionally to change [sic] the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years” – the free enterprise capitalist system. “The next world climate summit is actually an economic summit, during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated,” her UN climate crisis cohort Otmar Edendorfer added. “We will redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.”
Thus, under the 2015 Paris climate treaty, developing nations will be under no obligation to reduce their fossil fuel use or greenhouse gas emissions. They will simply take voluntary steps, when doing so will not impair their efforts to drive economic growth and improve their people’s living standards. Meanwhile, they will be entitled to share $3 billion to $300 billion per year in “climate change adaptation, mitigation and reparation” money. In fact, Mr. Obama has already transferred $500 million in taxpayer money (illegally) from a State Department emergency fund to the UN’s Green Climate Fund.
No wonder developing nations were thrilled to sign the 2015 Paris not-a-treaty treaty.
Recent headlines portend what’s in store. EU electricity prices rise 63% over past decade. Rising energy costs, green policies threaten to kill steel industry and 4,000 to 40,000 jobs, as Tata Steel quits Britain. Thousands of Europeans lose jobs, as manufacturing moves to countries with lower energy prices. Unable to afford proper heat, 40,000 Europeans die of hypothermia during 2014 winter.
In Africa and other energy-deprived regions: Millions die in 2015 from lung and intestinal diseases – due to open cooking and heating fires, spoiled food and unsafe water, and absence of electricity.
Meanwhile, despite mandates, loan guarantees, feed-in tariffs, endangered species exemptions and other subsidies, renewable industries are barely surviving: SunEnergy, world’s largest green energy company, faces bankruptcy, as share prices fall 95% in one year. Solar company Abengoa US files for Chapter 15 bankruptcy. China stops building wind turbines, as grid is damaged and most electricity is wasted.
But Climate Crisis ruling elites pay little attention to this. They will be insulated, enriched, and protected from their decisions and deceptions – as they decide what energy, jobs, living standards and freedoms the poor, minority, blue-collar and middle classes will be permitted to have.
Equally disturbing, their drive for total control is based on a chaotic world that is totally at odds with what the rest of us see outside our windows. Even after “homogenizing” and massaging the raw data, climate alarmists can only show that global temperatures may have risen a few tenths of a degree (barely the margin of error) during the 2015 El Niño year, after 19 years of no temperature increase, following two decades of slight warming, following three decades of slight cooling and warming.
On the “extreme weather” front, tornadoes, snows, floods and droughts are no more frequent or intense than over the past century. No Category 3-5 hurricane has made US landfall in a record 125 months. Polar ice remains well within historic fluctuations, and sea levels are rising at barely seven inches per century.
Alarmists thus rely on computer models that predict even “worse catastrophes,” if global temperatures rise even 0.5 degrees C (0.8 F) more than they already have since the Little Ice Age ended and Industrial Era began. However, the models are hopelessly deficient, and totally unable to predict the climate.
They overstate the climate’s sensitivity to carbon dioxide and methane, atmospheric gases chosen because they result from fossil fuel use (and from many natural sources). They assume these two gases have become the primary forces in climate change – and ignore or downplay changing solar energy, cosmic ray and geomagnetic output; major periodic fluctuations in Pacific and North Atlantic Ocean circulation; volcanic activity; regional and planetary temperature cycles that recur over multiple decades, centuries or millennia; and other natural forces that have always driven planetary warming, cooling and weather.
The models and modelers do this because these factors and their roles in climate change are not well understood, are difficult to measure, and do not fit the “humans are at fault” meme. They compound these errors by assuming that any warming will be dangerous, rather than beneficial for people and agriculture.
These oversights can be characterized as careless, recklessly negligent, or even “knowingly deceitful” and fraudulent. So can “nine inconvenient untruths” that a United Kingdom judge highlighted in Al Gore’s infamous fake-documentary movie – and Mr. Gore’s recent claim that atmospheric CO2 is fueling Zika outbreaks. Likewise for James Hansen’s repeated assertion that sea levels could rise “several meters” (117 inches) over the next century, and the bogus studies behind the phony “97% consensus” claims.
Can you picture the cabal of AGs filing RICO actions in these cases? If you want the facts, and a few chuckles about climate alarmism, see the Climate Hustle movie, coming May 2 to a theater near you.
Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death.

What Whitehouse and others are doing has precedence.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/2014/03/26/jesse-jacksons-silicon-valley-shakedown.html
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”.
“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.
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.
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.
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?
“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.
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.
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
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.
Cheers
Ben
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.
actually, someone above linked to a nice graph showing how the models compare to actual observations. They do pretty well, and certainly within the 95% confidence interval. So all that talk of the people here about how models are completely and utterly wrong is really quite strange, and not relating to the state of affairs as they actually are.
Suggest you go to Judith Curry’s site for discussion of this graph.
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.
benben,
Every assertion you made there is provably wrong.
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.
[snip. Labeling others as “deniers” violates site policy. -mod]
[Comment snipped. Strike two. Calling others “deniers” violates site policy. -mod]
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!
Ben
[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.
@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.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2802154/
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.
Leviathan is a good movie
…and a good story, with a moral.
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.
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.
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.
Actually, Exxon funded a great deal of research in this area. Perhaps it was a different department than that where your wife worked. http://graphics.latimes.com/oil-operations/
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.”
http://insideclimatenews.org/news/15092015/Exxons-own-research-confirmed-fossil-fuels-role-in-global-warming
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.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/04/21/fury-over-fracking/
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.
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…
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrey_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.
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
Leaves: attorneys attacking with no clue.
Felony?
The biggest obstacle is that no one has shown any harm from warming or more CO2. Both are better for life on earth.
‘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.
“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
WINTER (-1.67 F/DECADE) COOLING
FALL (-0.04 F/DECADE) COOLING (FLAT)
SPRING (+0.12 F/DECADE) WARMING (FLAT)
SUMMER (+0.24 F/DECADE) WARMING
ANNUAL (-0.22 F/DECADE) COOLING
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
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?
Slipstick,
Lynch doesn’t know squat about global warming and, unlike the emptyheaded Obama, she knows that she doesn’t know squat.
Reply
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?
About those
stickslip effect / google /
witchers. Easy come, easy paid.
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.