Attack on Free Speech: CEI Subpoenaed over Global Warming Skepticism


Guest essay by Eric Worrall

The Competitive Enterprise Institute has just been subpoenaed, as part of Al Gore’s Climate Witch hunt. This is a move which so blatantly reeks of McCarthyite abuse of power, even some proponents of climate action are horrified at the attack on freedom which this subpoena represents.

The following is the statement of the Competitive Enterprise Institute;

CEI Fights Subpoena to Silence Debate on Climate Change

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.


The text of the subpoena is here.

Here is a response from Bloomberg, which frequently takes a pro climate action position;

Subpoenaed Into Silence on Global Warming

The Competitive Enterprise Institute is getting subpoenaed by the attorney general of the U.S. Virgin Islands to cough up its communications regarding climate change. The scope of the subpoena is quite broad, covering the period from 1997 to 2007, and includes, according to CEI, “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.”

My first reaction to this news was “Um, wut?” CEI has long denied humans’ role in global warming, and I have fairly substantial disagreements with CEI on the issue. However, when last I checked, it was not a criminal matter to disagree with me. It’s a pity, I grant you, but there it is; the law’s the law.

(I pause to note, in the interests of full disclosure, that before we met, my husband briefly worked for CEI as a junior employee. We now return to our regularly scheduled programming.)

Speaking of the law, why on earth is CEI getting subpoenaed? The attorney general, Claude Earl Walker, explains: “We are committed to ensuring a fair and transparent market where consumers can make informed choices about what they buy and from whom. If ExxonMobil has tried to cloud their judgment, we are determined to hold the company accountable.”

That wasn’t much of an explanation. It doesn’t mention any law that ExxonMobil may have broken. It is also borderline delusional, if Walker believes that ExxonMobil’s statements or non-statements about climate change during the period 1997 to 2007 appreciably affected consumer propensity to stop at a Mobil station, rather than tootling down the road to Shell or Chevron, or giving up their car in favor of walking to work.

Prosecutors know the damage they can do even when they don’t have a leg to stand on. The threat of investigation can coerce settlements even in weak cases.

Read more:

In my opinion, this hysterical executive overreach will be the downfall of the climate alarmist movement in America, just as outrage at the excesses of the McCarthy era brought an end to that dark period of American history.

You don’t have to be a climate skeptic, to recognise that an attack on freedom of speech, in whatever guise, is an attack on everything which America stands for.

More than anything, this authoritarian, un-American attempt to silence dissent betrays the weakness of those perpetrating this attack on the CEI. In a Republic, people who have a compelling case to offer, don’t have to intimidate their political opponents into silence, to win the argument.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
April 8, 2016 11:13 pm

This is so difficult to believe. It doesn’t seem real.

Reply to  Shelly Marshall
April 8, 2016 11:28 pm

@ Shelly, believe it, this is real, it is an attack on people that are skeptical of “global warming” . These people like the AG’s know they have millions of dollars backing them up in a fight against people and groupslike CEI ( even attacks on single persons that are basically doing it for their love of correct science. Personally I am appalled at these tactics and we need to stand behind anyone that is being attacked in this way, if they are successful at these levels we should be really alarmed at what their next steps could be.

Reply to  asybot
April 9, 2016 3:39 am

Billions of dollars backing them up not millions. A worthy use of “climate change funds” I am sure. Not

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Shelly Marshall
April 9, 2016 5:06 am

Shelly M, try believing this one, to wit:

President Obama and the fossil fuel industry at last have found common cause: fighting a lawsuit brought by kids and teenagers over the administration’s alleged inaction on global warming.

Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
April 10, 2016 3:52 am

“industry groups argued that if the court accepts the plaintiff’s claims, it would “empower a group of private citizens to compel through judicial fiat the exercise of sweeping legislative and executive authority conferred by our Constitution exclusively to the political branches.”
This is of course, just what the Obama Administration wants. The Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, (2007) law suit, which led to the EPA Endangerment finding, was brought by a group of highly visible and well-funded NGO’s and Environmental Law Groups, supported by politicians from twelve US states and three cities, in a creatively constructed legal suit. The NGO practice of suing the EPA, in order to force them to do something that was their primary objective anyway, is something that has happened from the beginning of the EPA, commencing with the Environmental Defense Fund litigation against William Ruckelshaus over DDT.
Lisa Jackson, when EPA head, boasted at a “40 years of EPA” celebration at Harvard, about the fact that:
“the lead author of Massachusetts vs. EPA, came to work at the agency she once sued – to see through the work she sued it to do.
“Lisa Heinzerling, who with my colleagues here today including Gina McCarthy, Bob Perciasepe and Bob Sussman, helped EPA follow the science and follow the Supreme Court to finalize our endangerment finding on greenhouse gases last year.”
From January 2009 to July 2009, Heinzerling served as Senior Climate Policy Counsel to Lisa Jackson and then, from July 2009 to December 2010, she served as Associate Administrator of EPA’s Office of Policy. In 2008, she was a member of President Obama’s EPA transition team. A Professor of Law at Georgetown, she was at one time an assistant attorney general in Massachusetts, specializing in environmental law.
Which is where of course Gina McCarthy was Undersecretary for Policy at the Massachusetts Executive Office for Environmental Affairs under Mitt Romney.
You can read more about Lisa Jackson and the EPA here:

Reply to  Shelly Marshall
April 9, 2016 9:02 am

Let ’em keep on ramping up stupid claims for all the world to see. This legal claim is as meritless as most “scientific” claims promoted by this crowd.
Support by the general public for AGW is steadily ebbing away. The more outrageous their claims, the less credible their position, and the more surely are they seen for what they really are: racketeering white-collar promoters rent-seeking for public funds.
So let ’em run wild, secure in the knowledge that, eventually, “time wounds all heels”.

Reply to  Shelly Marshall
April 9, 2016 9:13 am

Easy. Actually, this is pretty American tactics. Subpoena, threaten with grave penalties provided by the local collection of established and unestablished law, coerce into co-operation.
Or use huge amounts of money into legal defence not needed elsewhere.
The system resembles justice. Yes, but only remotely.

Reply to  Hugs
April 10, 2016 12:52 pm

Don’t accept a subpoena. Don’t even touch the envelope if presented. Let the party get a warrant to serve the subpoena and let the party prove in court why they want a subpoena.

Reply to  Shelly Marshall
April 9, 2016 1:22 pm

[snip – fake name, fake email address, sockpuppeting -mod]

Reply to  Shelly Marshall
April 9, 2016 6:32 pm

Maybe Shelly means this is some kind of bad dream so this doesn’t look real?

Reply to  Shelly Marshall
April 9, 2016 8:56 pm

The Virgin Islands Consortium
Claude Walker was an EPA attorney in Washington for 8 years.

April 8, 2016 11:23 pm

Absolutely shameful.

Reply to  BillJ
April 9, 2016 7:25 am

Appalling. It’s an attack on civilization. Not only do the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age not exist in their tiny demented minds but neither does the Age of Enlightenment.

Rob Morrow
Reply to  AB
April 9, 2016 12:49 pm

The Enlightenment killer Rousseau is still haunting us from the grave. The stated position of AGW totalitarian cowards is (more or less) that they are serving the “general will” of the people.

April 8, 2016 11:25 pm

They should be done for an abuse of the law.

Reply to  mikebartnz
April 9, 2016 4:58 am

Unprecedented Coalition Vows To Defend Climate Change Progress Made Under President Obama And To Push The Next President For Even More Aggressive Action
from th AG’s official site. This is blatantly politically motived. Since when is it job of AG to do anything other than prosecute on the objectives merits of the case not as a form of political pressure and pre-motivated harassment?

Reply to  Greg
April 9, 2016 12:41 pm

‘Unprecedented Coalition Vows To Defend Climate Change Progress Made Under President Obama And To Push The Next President For Even More Aggressive Action’
Gawd. You call that man attorney general?
He’s a political rat.

Reply to  mikebartnz
April 9, 2016 10:40 am

Agreed. The 12+ pages of detailed instructions in Appendix A of the subpoena imposes a horrendous amount of work on CEI: documents cannot merely be “handed over”, they must be catalogued, scanned via OCR (Optical Character Recognition) so that they are searchable via computer, and provided with “Bates Numbers.” I imagine it might take thousands of man-hours to put the requested documents into the form demanded. A fishing expedition by the AG, with all the work done by those subpoenaed.

Reply to  NeedleFactory
April 9, 2016 12:45 pm

FOIAing is easy peasy compared to this kind of politicized criminal investigation.

Tom Anderson
Reply to  mikebartnz
April 11, 2016 10:43 am

Well, defendants could file a counterclaim for malicious prosecution.

Reply to  Tom Anderson
April 11, 2016 11:04 am

Read up on SLAPP laws. That’s why they filed in the US Virgin Islands. They don’t have to win, just intimidate you and use up your time and money. They don’t have an anti SLAPP law like most states do.
In fact, just filing has a chilling effect. The plaintiffs don’t have to do anything else. Show up, nada, zipo, doda, nothing.

Reply to  rishrac
April 11, 2016 11:14 am

Writes rishrac: “Read up on SLAPP laws. That’s why they filed in the US Virgin Islands. They don’t have to win, just intimidate you and use up your time and money. They don’t have an anti SLAPP law like most states do.
“In fact, just filing has a chilling effect. The plaintiffs don’t have to do anything else.”

Let me reiterate an earlier request I’d made – moderated into asphyxiation – with regard to a potential federal anti-SLAPP statute.
Are there any reading here prepared to suggest the characteristics that an ideal anti-SLAPP law should incorporate?

April 8, 2016 11:35 pm

maybe we should be counting our blessings.
remember when al gore almost became POTUS?

Ron Clutz
Reply to  chaamjamal
April 9, 2016 1:07 pm

Maybe his global warming crusade is driven by bitterness and desire for more power than he lost.

April 8, 2016 11:42 pm

“You don’t have to be a climate skeptic, to recognise that an attack on freedom of speech, in whatever guise, is an attack on everything which America stands for.”
Someone hasn’t been paying much attention to the liberal news and PC activists lately……

April 8, 2016 11:43 pm

This is just like the Chinese Communist Government, during 1958 – 62 which was the period when land was confiscated and agriculture etc was collectivised, arresting everyone who said there was a food shortage and accusing them of capitalistic tendencies and they were hiding food.
Some say as many as 60 million died during that period.

April 8, 2016 11:51 pm

No doubt in the interests of justice similar full disclosure will be required from the climate modellers,their funders and acolytes.
It would certainly be interesting to hear them admitting to losing their data or admitting that they are so unsure of it’s accuracy that they refuse to supply it to people who might want to find errors with it under oath.

Reply to  BrianMcL
April 9, 2016 1:24 am

So why isn’t NASA forced to give up its emails? The government actually owns those records.

Reply to  Jon
April 9, 2016 3:51 am

Jon, I agree with you.
But, let us never forget that NASA is the government. It is one of the bureaucracies that form the government and that NASA carries out government policy as it understands it just as every bureaucracy does.
One of the things that every government and every bureaucracy within any government strives for at all times is an expansion of power. Power drives the governmental mind and the “CO2 causes global warming and that warming will fry us all” delusion is a perfect scare story to drive Total Control of all of mankind’s activities.
This is all about control and not science.

George Daddis
Reply to  Jon
April 9, 2016 7:17 am

To reinforce Markstoval’s comment, one of my favorite lines of this election season was “I will make government so small that it will fit into the Constitution”.
In that vision, there would not be room for most of the bureaucracies.
Now, THAT’S Hope and Change for you.

Mike McMillan
April 8, 2016 11:57 pm

The government doesn’t have a legitimate interest in the lawful activities of a private outfit that doesn’t take taxpayer money. Congress could invite those AG’s in for a little chat, under oath, of course.
On the other hand, the govt has an obligation to investigate the activities of those multitudes on the climate gravy train. Over a hundred billion so far, might just be some prosecutable offenses in there.
First thing Cruz or Trump should do is appoint a whole passel of special prosecutors. (Then fire the Joint Chiefs and move EPA headquarters to Lenexa, Kansas.)

Reply to  Mike McMillan
April 9, 2016 4:28 am

Move EPA headquarters to Beijing, where they really need it.

Reply to  firetoice2014
April 9, 2016 4:44 am

“Move EPA headquarters to Beijing, where they really need it.”
What?!? And start a war with China?! ;o)

Reply to  firetoice2014
April 9, 2016 8:13 am

You might consider that China might be behind this subtle form of economic warfare. Check out where Maurice Strong, an early UN promoter of this propaganda, disappeared to in his later years, for example.

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Riverhead
Reply to  firetoice2014
April 9, 2016 8:44 am

China has an EPA, and it is called, believe it or not, the EPA.

Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo but really in Riverhead
April 10, 2016 12:40 pm

Perhaps, but apparently it does not work very well. China has access to SOx, NOx and particulate control technology, but apparently chooses not to use it.

Reply to  firetoice2014
April 11, 2016 9:42 am

After the fall of the Soviet Union, it was shown that the Soviets were behind many of the so called peace and environmental activists.

Evan Jones
Reply to  firetoice2014
April 12, 2016 3:19 am

Perhaps, but apparently it does not work very well. China has access to SOx, NOx and particulate control technology, but apparently chooses not to use it.
Wisely so. They realize that — at this time — far more lives are saved and extended per dollar by building the cheapest coal plants than by capping existing ones. Poverty is still the great killer. Pollution, as bad as it is, is a distant second.
When that equation changes (and it will as they develop), they will make what they have much, much cleaner. That process is just beginning.

Geoff Sherrington
April 9, 2016 12:00 am

The subpoena deals with CEI as additional to a main defendant ExxonMobil Oil Corp., with the inference that certain actions of CEI are related to actions of ExxonMobil.
An action of ExxonMobil that plausibly will be considered, will be the release of GHG, especially Carbon Dioxide, into the air. If this is so, it might be noted that ExxonMobil has a somewhat circuitous path with respect to such emissions. Many in the public see it as selling a product, auto gas, that people can take away to use in ways of their own, but which will usually involve GHG emissions.
A more direct path of CO2 to the air would arise from the deliberate manufacture or purchase of CO2, putting it in a container, adding to the amount stored by moves such as the addition of water and maybe other chemicals. A person purchasing such a product would more likely know that opening it is a direct cause of CO2 emissions.
There is such a product. It is called a drink bottle or can and it is sold by well-known corporations such as Coca Cola and many makers of beer.
It is difficult to imagine a more direct way to deliberately release CO2 into the air. It is also a life style choice to do so, not a requirement of human survival. In a sense, the CO2 is an incentive in the product that makes it more tasty for people to buy. The emission of CO2 to the air is a deliberate act by the bottlers and brewers, while for ExxonMobil the emissions are a by-product that possibly they would prefer not to have.
So, if there is to be a process that claims that CO2 emissions are bad, who is guilty of causing them and who should be first to explain and justify, logic would say that the bottlers and brewers should be ahead of ExxonMobil in the queue.
Indeed, it seems that CEI has a rationale to demand that not only drink makers, but all corporations, industries, people, governments etc that are not already involved in this search by the Attorney General of Virgin Islands, should be included alongside CEI unless a strong, particular reason exists to select CEI as a co-defendant. This is because each one of us is by design of Nature, an emitter of CO2 in a compulsory manner, through breathing.
If that reason to defocus on ExxonMobil exists, surely CEI is entitled to have it detailed before moving to comply.
However, the better outcome would be for the originators of this legal demand to reconsider it and withdraw.
It is the stuff that causes wars. It is a serious mischief.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
April 9, 2016 5:19 am

Great post, Geoff S, …….. but you should have included another direct path of CO2 to the air ……. and that is the baking industry as well as the suppliers of baking powders and baking soda.

Rich Lambert
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
April 9, 2016 7:43 am

What about all the CO2 released from the production of ethanol?

Reply to  Rich Lambert
April 10, 2016 10:56 pm

What about breathing out?

Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
April 9, 2016 10:11 am

One of my favorite speculations along the same lines, when seeing the entire aisle of our grocery filled with soda pop…What if we shook them all and opened at the same time, would everyone in the sore die from the CO2?
Likewise every human is like a huge beer can 24/7, turning all those carbs they eat into co2 emissions. Athletes should be prosecutes, especially triathletes. Obese, inactive people should get a tax break.

Dudley Horscroft
April 9, 2016 12:07 am

Is this not similar to the requests for Mr Mann to produce certain emails. As a non-US citizen, it appears that the procedure is the same. The difference is that Mr Mann and Mr Steyn are engaged in a legal bttle between the pair of them.
I cannot see what the CEI has to do with Exxon – did CEI advise Exxon, has any link been established between CEI and Exxon? Does Exxon operate in the colony of Virgin Islands? Does Exxon pay CEI to do anything? This commandment could be equally well addressed to the State of Kentucky. The causal link would appear to bea s good.
Yes, the commands appears to be totally off the page, but does this really amount to an attack on free speech?
To demand that 10 years worth of documents be transcribed into electronic text and all within a month appears to be totally ridiculous.

Reply to  Dudley Horscroft
April 9, 2016 12:18 am

Mann is paid by the public.
CEI is a private enterprise.
Mann’s records are, and should be, all of our property. CEI paid for their own research, it’s theirs.
It’s that simple.

Reply to  Gaelanclark
April 9, 2016 2:24 am

“It’s that simple.”
No, it’s not. Cuccinelli as Virginia AG issued a Civil Investigative Demand, claiming that he suspected Mann of freud; the VI AG has issued an investigative subpoena claiming a suspicion of RICO violation by Exxon. Neither action had anything to do with the source of funding for the documents. Both were, IMO, an abuse of AG investigative powers.

michael hart
Reply to  Gaelanclark
April 9, 2016 2:55 am

“he suspected Mann of freud”
lol. A fraudian slip there, Nic? 🙂

Reply to  Gaelanclark
April 9, 2016 4:31 am

Hello Nick…..Mann and Styne were mentioned and CEI was mentioned. I commented. Nothing about Virginia or Cuccinelli or any OTHER lawsuit/investigations.
It’s that simple. Don’t confuse yourself.

Reply to  Gaelanclark
April 9, 2016 8:32 am

Nick, If they had limited the request to documents pertaining to or in communication with Exxon, then I can see how it would valid. Though the exact same complaint can and has been made of the entire investigation of Exxon in the first place. I still do not understand the tortured logic of how, even if everything they accuse Exxon of is true, it would be racketeering.
However, they asked for everything in total. Including private donations. That’s a vast overreach far beyond any rational investigation into Exxon.

Reply to  Gaelanclark
April 9, 2016 11:56 am

“Mann and Styne were mentioned and CEI was mentioned.”
The comment confused things. But Steyn etc have not (yet) demanded Mann’s emails. The only legal attempt to force that came from Cuccinelli and, yes, CEI.
“However, they asked for everything in total. Including private donations. “
I couldn’t see that. They asked for everything about relationship with Exxon. They asked about donations and funding from Exxon, directly or indirectly.
michael hard
My earlier slip was to use correct spelling. The comment went into moderation, then disappeared.

Reply to  Gaelanclark
April 9, 2016 2:16 pm

OK Nick, after reading it more thoroughly, you are correct. However, Item 8 on page 12 and the ludicrously broad definition of “Concerning” on page 9 can easily be construed to mean anything related to combustion of oil, which reduces to my prior statement.

Reply to  Gaelanclark
April 9, 2016 3:44 pm

Nick Stokes:
Prof. Mann was an employee of the State of Virginia for the period investigated by Virginia’s AG. Apples and oranges comparison with CEI.
States also have FOIA rules that cover state employees. You don’t seem to know what you are talking about here.

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Gaelanclark
April 10, 2016 3:26 am

“States also have FOIA rules that cover state employees.”
They don’t cover employees; they cover institutions. But Cuccinelli’s investigative demand was not made under FOIA. It was made claiming suspicion of frαud. In fact, it failed because UVa was a State institution.

Reply to  Gaelanclark
April 11, 2016 5:47 am

Cuccineli’s fraud investigation was not based on FOIA. CEI’s request was. You mentioned both.
The AG’s investigation was stymied by the court’s ruling that UVA was covered by an exception in the state’s fraud statute. The VA Supreme Court found that UVA was not a legal “person” under the statute (in contrast with, for example, the treatment of state corporations as “persons” with regard to federal campaign finance laws).
Note also that CEI’s FOIA request (which you may have confused with ATI’s FOIA efforts**) was an effort to learn the basis for UVA’s decisions to withhold all info about Prof. Mann’s communications yet release similar information about his adversary, Prof. Patrick Michaels.
UVA originally agreed it had a duty to release the Mann-related documents to ATI under FOIA but Prof. Mann challenged the agreement in court. It was during this time that a CEI employee blogged disparaging, if satiric, comments about Prof. Mann — ultimately leading to the Mann vs Steyn imbroglio.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Dudley Horscroft
April 9, 2016 1:34 pm

Dudley, Mann sued Steyn!! Steyn has already supplied Mann’s demand for disclosure documents. Steyn has counter-sued Mann and has demanded the data behind his hockeystick which he has steadfastly refused to supply to scientists or anyone else. This is very much apropos since Mann sued Steyn for his mocking the ‘stick’ as scientific fraud or some such so the data is centrally relevant.
Steyn’s counter-suit for $20million was a very balsy move. It means that Mann can’t now back out of the suit (he was really using it to punish as in the case of AG of V.I.), so it will go forward come hell or high water. Now why do you think that Mann would be reluctant to supply the data and code for his hockey stick – what important reason can you think of?

April 9, 2016 12:08 am

So where do you stand on the Lamar Smith abuse of power in his request for the NOAA emails? Seems to me you can draw parallels to McCarthyism there to. In fact he has been accused of it by more than just a few.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
April 9, 2016 6:50 am

Except Hilary, who likely will not get indicted.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
April 10, 2016 5:09 pm

I do believe Obama just issued a press release (according to the news wires) relating to that issue making it most unlikely that anything will come of the Hillary investigation.
There are many comments in the press for months suggesting the investigation will be a tempest in a tea-pot.
Here is just one from today.
Nothing is likely to come of it but it might make for interesting dialog come November.

Reply to  Simon
April 9, 2016 12:25 am

Don’t be ridiculous. NOAA is a government agency, not an organization of citizens with constitutional protections to think and speak anything they wish w/o any permission or interference from the government. Congress has over-site responsibilities wrt such government functions as NOAA.

Reply to  gregjxn
April 9, 2016 12:49 am

“Congress has over-site responsibilities wrt such government functions as NOAA.” But I would have thought they are also obliged to use tax payers money efficiently and Smith’s witch hunt is surely at risk of being accused of wasting everyones time and money. Hardly responsible government.

Reply to  gregjxn
April 9, 2016 1:05 am

Well that’s all good then…. because I am. And I think he should be held accountable for being anti science, particularly so because of the position he holds.

Reply to  gregjxn
April 9, 2016 1:23 am

Simon. You may think it’s a waste of tax payer’s money to investigate the government sponsored wholesale fabrication of data – paid for by those tax payers – in the interests of destroying the the US economy and causing energy costs – for those self-same tax payers – to soar out of control but let me be the first to assure you – anyone with more than two brain cells will not.

Reply to  gregjxn
April 9, 2016 1:30 am

“If your case is compelling, you may convince the people to elect different politicians.”
That’s virtually impossible, because Smith is in one of the most heavily gerrymandered districts in the country. The shape is a complete joke, it makes absolutely zero sense except as a way to ensure his re-election while avoiding the Democratic pockets in San Antonio and Austin.

Brett Keane
Reply to  gregjxn
April 9, 2016 2:01 am

I am afraid I know Simon, and ridiculous is his middle name.!

Reply to  Brett Keane
April 23, 2016 4:51 am

Brett Keane,
He’s Simpleton Simon to me.
Simpleton Ridiculous Simon. I like it!

Reply to  gregjxn
April 9, 2016 4:06 am

Eric Worrall @ April 9, 2016 at 1:00 am wrote:
“America is a free country”
That is not true. We could argue that the country used to be “free”, but if one does not understand the nature of the present police state called the USA then one is not a reliable observer of politics and reality.
As one example out of millions; the police can confiscate property and money from people and it does so at an enormous rate each year without even a requirement to bring charges much the less convicting the victim.
As another example: the feds are spying on everyone in the country in direct violation of the “worthless piece of paper” called the Constitution. Joseph Stalin could only dream of the surveillance powers that the USA now has.

Reply to  gregjxn
April 9, 2016 7:27 pm

The Congress has the duty to see to it that government data has not or is not been tampered with.
If data is allowed to be tampered with in one agency, then any other government agency can tamper with data.

Reply to  gregjxn
April 12, 2016 2:23 am

I wasn’t around to oversee your over-site. Where is it?

Reply to  Simon
April 9, 2016 12:44 am

I think a closer analogy is with the CID issued re Mann by Cuccinelli as AG of Virginia. That was an investigative demand based on his suspicion of fraud; this seems to be an investigative subpoena issued under the authority of the AG of the Virgin Islands,based on his suspicion of some RICO violation. I would expect that the authority of the VI AG action to also be vigorously and successfully contested. It should be.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 9, 2016 3:50 pm

Nick, this got flagged as a duplicate comment, next time please state it is a correction.

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 10, 2016 3:29 am

re Duplicate comment – actually that was my first comment on the thread, but went into moderation and then disappeared, because, I think, of the f-word. Anyway, thanks for restoring it.

Reply to  Simon
April 9, 2016 1:49 am

Simon says “abuse of power”, “McCarthyism”, and “Smith’s witch hunt”, arguing from his impotent emotion as usual.
Even more preposterous, Simon wails about “wasting everyones time and money”, when there is no bigger waste of time and money than the ongoing “climate change” scam — the biggest hoax on the taxpaying public ever perpetrated.
But Simon dosen’t care. He is no skeptic, so that wastage is A-OK with Simon. But when a Representative even starts to question the monumental waste, Simon gets all holier-than-thou.
That’s typical two-faced hypocrisy from the climate alarmist cult.

Reply to  dbstealey
April 9, 2016 2:05 am

Thank you for using the word “hypocrisy,” it was my very point. Eric is bleating about Gore taking a group rightly or wrongly to task and here we have Lamar Smith pushing his own personal viewpoint (not that of the established science) and churning through taxpayers dollars to do it. it seems everyone here is fine with that, why, because they agree with his misguided view. “Hypocrisy” indeed.

Reply to  Simon
April 9, 2016 2:32 am

Ah, so now Simon is the arbiter of what is “established science”.
Is that something like the “consensus”?
And the “churning through taxpayer dollars” comment is so hypocritical it needs no further response.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  dbstealey
April 9, 2016 5:49 am

I don’t know why I kept thinking about what Josephus said, ….. every time I read one of Simon’s comments, to wit:

Now I cannot but think, that the greatness of a kingdom, and its changes into prosperity, often becomes the occasion of mischief and of transgression to men, for so it usually happens, that the manners of subjects are corrupted at the same time with those of their governors, which subjects then lay aside their own sober way of living, as a reproof of their governor’s intemperate courses, and follow their wickedness, as if it were virtue, for it is not possible to show that men approve of the actions of their kings, unless they do the same actions with them.” (Flavius Josephus – 37- 100 AD)

Reply to  dbstealey
April 9, 2016 7:33 am

Simon: Every politicians pushes their own personal viewpoint. Obama keeps sending the army out to fight climate change, as nonsensical as that may be. As is pointed out, NOAA is a publicly funded agency and people have the right to know if that agency is manipulating data to a political end. Global warming believers are not pure as the newly fallen snow in East. They are just as prone to cover things up, pay off politicians, etc to get thier personal viewpoint through. Global warming has been turned into politics, dropping the science out it quite effectively.

Reply to  Simon
April 9, 2016 3:44 am

When you use “anti science” you become transparent.
Whispers came from NOAA bout the abuse of scientific process, not congress. So in that context, your argument is moot.

Reply to  Simon
April 9, 2016 8:36 am

It’s also a matter of power. Lamar Smith could not prosecute NOAA if he wanted to. The AG is explicitly trying to put people into prison.
Also, there is a reasonable chain of logic that could reveal that NOAA had exaggerated warming. While I still do not understand how the actions of Exxon could possibly be racketeering
Finally, the subpoena asks for donor information. How could that possibly be relevant to the matter at hand?

Doug in Calgary
Reply to  benofhouston
April 9, 2016 1:20 pm

“Finally, the subpoena asks for donor information. How could that possibly be relevant to the matter at hand?”
I believe that is called a fishing trip in order to generate more subpoenas.

Reply to  benofhouston
April 9, 2016 5:38 pm

How about coercion or extortion? This kind of situation has been brewing for quite sometime now!
COP21 gave this the final push.

April 9, 2016 12:10 am

Seems like abuse of process to me.

April 9, 2016 12:25 am

Perhaps the CEI’s first reaction is too confrontational. The subpoena appears to be a fishing expedition, because it is entirely unclear how these communications can possibly relate to:
a) The Virgin Islands,
b) Obtaining money by false pretenses, or
c) Conspiracy to obtain money by false pretenses,
which is all that the RICO laws relate to.
In any event, it is not an attempt “to unearth a decade of the organization’s materials and work on climate change policy”, nor is it “an intimidation campaign to criminalize speech and research on the climate debate”. The subpoena relates only to communications to and from ExxonMobil. Should be easy enough to limit documentation to only that material.
However, I am at a complete loss as to how the prosecution will then be able to prove that the company has been “engaging in conduct misrepresenting its knowledge of the likelihood that its products or activities have contributed or are continuing to contribute to Climate Change”.
Given how long this company has been in operation, does that mean the prosecution has to show that ExxonMobil were contributing to the cooling period from 1940 to 1976, but then their products completely changed so that they were now contributing to heating from 1976 to 1998? And given the specific period of the subpoena (1997-2007), does that mean that ExxonMobil will have to show how its products contributed to the 18 year pause?
The fun will begin when the prosecution has to try to define what they mean by climate change. Given that the IPCC has changed its definition several times, I wonder which definition the courts will settle on. In any event, a semi-competent industrial chemist or engineer with a 1954 textbook should be able to show what the IPCC has always avoided hearing – that atmospheric CO2 concentrations only have limited impact on atmospheric temperature, and no demonstrable influence on climate.

Reply to  Pauly
April 9, 2016 2:21 am

“The fun will begin when the prosecution has to try to define what they mean by climate change.”
I think you could probably go one step further as a debate in a legal forum should, in theory, allow the Climate Pragmatists* the opportunity to validate their claims instead of having to fight their corner on websites such as these. It would in effect give the Pragmatist the opportunity to say to the Alarmists, prove it.
In my own science field I put a similar question to a leading world practitioner, that if a particular practice was used as evidence in a court of law and found to be provable evidence, would the use of such technique in a court of law validate its further use. Her response was a simple yes.
*My preference of moniker for those that oppose the Alarmists stance if the Alarmists stance is rooted firmly in fictional scenarios based on models based on battered datasets.

Steve Fraser
Reply to  gazzatrone
April 9, 2016 10:09 am

The subpoena has a definition of climate change inclusive of human and natural causes.

Dan Daly
Reply to  Pauly
April 9, 2016 7:42 am

I am hoping the fun begins with a motion to quash the subpoena on grounds that it pertains to a lawsuit over which the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. The DC Superior Court is not in a position to determine whether “climate change” exists or is an injury for which an oil company can be held accountable based on its speech. Just the hearings on the subpoena could last for years.

John in Oz
April 9, 2016 12:33 am

Perhaps the A’s G should be asked why they still use Exxon Mobile’s products as they obviously know the detrimental effects using them has. They would all drive (or be driven in) automobiles, use electricity that is not wholly ‘green’, utilise plastics, etc.
Hypocrites, all.

Mark T
Reply to  John in Oz
April 9, 2016 10:02 am

Ah, proper punctuation!

Mark T
Reply to  Mark T
April 9, 2016 10:03 am

Rather, you put the pluralization in the right place. 😉

Reply to  John in Oz
April 9, 2016 3:03 pm

If the AG asking for the fishing expedition knows Exxon is doing wrong, and he purchases Exxon’s products anyway because they’re cheaper, that’s R.I.C.O. violation right there.
RICO has to do with any manner of profiting from crime, and if he knows Exxon’s prices are criminally low, and he has purchased any of them, he’s violated RICO by profiting from that illegal activity.

John in Oz
April 9, 2016 at 12:33 am
Perhaps the A’s G should be asked why they still use Exxon Mobile’s products as they obviously know the detrimental effects using them has. They would all drive (or be driven in) automobiles, use electricity that is not wholly ‘green’, utilise plastics, etc.
Hypocrites, all.

April 9, 2016 12:35 am

America is moving toward becoming the United States of Russia. Very sad.

Reply to  BlueSkies
April 9, 2016 7:10 am

Russia’s been a lot more open and democratic than the U.S. on most issues like this recently…sad to say

Reply to  Zenreverend
April 9, 2016 1:01 pm

At Russia, Attorney General is doing exactly what the President tells him to do. In the US, AG is doing a doggy-do.

April 9, 2016 12:42 am

Mahatma Gandhi — ‘First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, and then you win.’

Reply to  Varco
April 9, 2016 1:43 am


April 9, 2016 12:42 am

This is obviously not going to be a zero-cost exercise and CEI are not even the focus of the exercise.
Will CEI be able to claim expenses?

Mark T
Reply to  graphicconception
April 9, 2016 10:05 am

Likely no, unless they can prove prosecutorial misconduct. Even then, I don’t know…

Reply to  Mark T
April 9, 2016 1:04 pm

Does that mean that owning an AG can be compared to having some WMD? Dead by legal expenses?

April 9, 2016 12:53 am

It’s been cold up here in Canada (Toronto) for the past 10 days or so. Please tell me that I’ve been hibernating for the past 356 days and it’s now April 1st, 2017. This attorney general should be impeached for this move – why did western nations expend copious amounts of blood and treasure fighting the Axis in WW II and then fight the Cold War for 45 years against world-wide Communism? If this action succeeds against the Competitive Enterprise Institute then it will just be the beginning, or the beginning of the end of free speech. In Canada since the 1970’s, the wrong kind of speech often got the attention of Human Rights Commissions (HRC’s) – one in every province & territory. This included charging conservative commentator Ezra Levant in 2008 for reprinting the “Danish Cartoons” of the Prophet Mohammed and Mark Steyn for his article on Islam in Macleans magazine. The HRC’s were reined in somewhat by the previous Conservative federal government, but now the Liberals are back in power with Trudeau Jr, who knows. I bet every one of these Kangeroo Courts will be chomping at the bit in anticipation of some action against “Deniers” in Canada. Dr. Goebbels is probably applauding this move somewhere down in the depths of Hell along with his boss and their former arch-enemy, Stalin..

April 9, 2016 12:58 am

This is an attack not only on freedom of speech but also an attack on Science itself. This McCarthy style attack and abuse of power strike at the fundamental free exchange of ideas that Science represents and by which Science develops.

April 9, 2016 1:04 am

I’m advising my friends and relatives to think twice before taking a holiday in the “Land of the Free”.

Reply to  Luc Ozade (@Luc_Ozade)
April 9, 2016 1:41 am

They’ll give up anyway. The visa regime is about to toughen for travellers between USA and EU.
Besides, flying there violates mother Gaia with tons of anti-American poison, and those who do that risk being forcibly deported to Gul… re-education facility.

Evan Jones
Reply to  Hlaford
April 9, 2016 4:53 am


Phillip Bratby
April 9, 2016 1:05 am

Why 1997 to 2007? Why not the more recent years?

Reply to  Phillip Bratby
April 9, 2016 1:55 am

Because from 2007 onwards would indicate there hasn’t been any warming.

Ed Zuiderwijk
April 9, 2016 1:12 am

These people have no shame.

Evan Jones
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
April 9, 2016 7:35 am

I suppose not. But one must not forget that this is a sword that cuts both ways.

Steamboat McGoo
April 9, 2016 1:23 am

On the (potential) bright side: Gore et al are going to be tasting the foot they just shoved deeply into their collective mouths for a looooog time!

Coeur de Lion
April 9, 2016 1:28 am

Counter sue

Steve Fraser
Reply to  Coeur de Lion
April 9, 2016 10:12 am

CEI is not being sued.

April 9, 2016 1:35 am

I’m not surprised.
North America is excessively left for over a decade now. It comes with consequences.
You are in a position to vote for a Marxist feminist, and if that option wins, well, your imagination is not colourful enough to imagine what follows.

April 9, 2016 1:38 am

Frankly, I don’t quite understand why this behaviour is called un-American.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Amatør1
April 9, 2016 6:03 am

Does not coincide with basic American principles of freedom and democracy.

Reply to  Amatør1
April 9, 2016 8:55 am

A subpoena must be based on a theory that a specific law has been violated, and evidence of that violation can be obtained by a search. The subpoena must cite where the search is to be, and what items are being looked for. As far as I can see, it is ExxonMobil who is accused of violating the law, not CEI. Any communications between ExxonMobil and CEI could be obtained solely from ExxonMobil. If those communications suggest a “conspiracy” with CEI, THEN they should get a subpoena for CEI’s internal documents.
That the government is seeking additional work product from CEI at this point indicates a gross over-reach and a fishing expedition, or an attempt to shut down an organization that does not agree with the government’s position on climate.
Just imagine that your neighbor is accused of breaking the law, and a subpoena is sought to search YOUR house based on your having talked to your neighbor. No. They must have a theory as to what role you played, and specifically what they are looking for. Without such requirements, our Constitutionally protected rights against UNREASONABLE searches would be meaningless.

Ron Clutz
Reply to  Jtom
April 9, 2016 1:21 pm

You rightfully raise the underlying question here: Who is telling the truth and who is lying? Since these legal proceedings are located in the USA, there must be US laws on the books claiming the truth of climate change. Where are they to be found? Is the premise that EPA science is legal authority binding all US citizens and corporations? If so, how did that happen?

Peter Miller
April 9, 2016 1:39 am

Perhaps this legal bully would like to subpoena Michael Mann to release all his emails etc of the past 10 years as well?
Balance in the climate debate? Yeah right, but not in our lifetime or in our real world.

Chris Hanley
April 9, 2016 1:39 am

The process is the punishment.

Reply to  Chris Hanley
April 11, 2016 9:49 am


April 9, 2016 1:48 am

This and other such events in the US has made to wonder, what was that 2nd amendment really for, shooting clay pigeons? What atrocity does the government need to commit to get people to defend the constitution (you know, from enemies, foreign and domestic), put people behind bars for life on bullshit charges? No, they are already doing that. Perhaps the need to come home to people and just execute their families. Perhaps that is the limit. I guess they will most probably just ruin people. Back in the days when the common folks didn’t really have anything you had to kill them and their loved ones to really hurt them. Today, you don’t have to do that. Just take their stuff and means of supporting themselves.
The USA was the only free country in the entire world. Its is really sad to see it go without a fight.

April 9, 2016 1:49 am

Perhaps this is just an attack on free speech but I doubt that is the end goal. Climate Change is big business and big profits can be made by the mere filing of the subpoena. E-Gore’s gang of government paid attorneys have unlimited tax payer funds to waste, non-profits don’t. The accusations will feed the need for action to save the planet at any costs. Politicians will not argue against it and send more money. Private donations will increase. They don’t have to win to win!! Privilege Laws protect government employees from most litigation, perhaps those laws should be looked at again.

April 9, 2016 2:14 am

Fascism, plain and simple–always lurking within Socialism.

April 9, 2016 2:28 am

To: Mr Gore and all AG friends: when do we burn the books?

Reply to  Dave
April 9, 2016 7:14 am

lol and on that tack: Maybe the CEI should simply reply with the last 5 years’ records and state that they don’t keep anything older than that.

April 9, 2016 2:35 am

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall (28 September 1868)

Gunga Din
Reply to  Hans Erren
April 9, 2016 10:10 am

Many have said something along those lines. “Give me liberty or give me death”. The First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. etc.
The form of Government inspired by and to implement the ideals laid out in The Declaration of Independence had the Bill of Rights as a brake on it’s authority.
The Bill of Rights has been eroded for multiple decades.
Gore, the judge and AG are using Government’s authority, not to protect individual rights but to preserve a cash cow.

Reply to  Gunga Din
April 9, 2016 5:55 pm

And this may be the biggest cash cow ever!
As I recall, some of the Founders thought that the country might last 200 years and now it’s about 40 years beyond that.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Hans Erren
April 9, 2016 2:48 pm

I thought that was Voltaire.

April 9, 2016 2:41 am

Quite astonishing. Remember Nullius in verba. Science is ALL about testing theories, hypotheses and the work of others. Furthermore if the said theories and hypotheses do not replicate reality they are dismissed. Very frequently do dismissed theories return to be proven. Marshall’s work on heliocobacter pylori is one, Fred Hoyle’s theories on continuous element formation in stars is another as is (as we now know for sure only this year) his and Chandra Wickramasinghe’s much ridiculed ideas for panspermia. Unless and until there is continuous testing of theories – however unwarranted some might appear to be at some time, true science will be suppressed.
Why is it that in America (and elsewhere) today the motto of the Royal Society is apparently forgotten:
Nullius in verba (Take nobody’s word for it)?

April 9, 2016 2:42 am

They should tell the AG that all that information was stored on Hillary’s server and may have been erased/deleted.

Reply to  mkelly
April 9, 2016 7:14 am


April 9, 2016 2:47 am

“including private donor information” … there it is.
On it’s face, they’re implying that they want to know if Exxon gave CEI cash to “deny CC”, but what they really want is to find out who really does finance CEI.
They’re just using an Exxon investigation as a “false front”.

Reply to  Sleepalot
April 9, 2016 2:55 am

Next stop, Heartland.

old construction worker
Reply to  Sleepalot
April 9, 2016 7:03 am

bingo, we have a winner

April 9, 2016 2:56 am

I would think some of us could go to jail by default. On the one hand, NOAA scientists are up in arms decrying that their freedom to work independently is at stake from producing internal emails and documents, and then on the other, advocates of global warming are demanding exhaustive documentation for 20 years ago. As if I could produce that. I am quite certain that I meet the criteria for being an expert in climate science. Further, in my opinion, which is free of financial gain, ( the many millions of dollars from Exxon has not materialized and if they did, I’d promptly find another country to live in) that AGW is wrong. It can be further argued that almost the entire group of AGW proponents, including the grant takers and lawyers, have a financial interest. I don’t. One way or the other. Over the years I have been solidly convinced that AGW is wrong. Will jail time or re education solve that problem for them? When is a legitimate scientific question criminal? All I’m asking is on what basis do they assert that co2 is driving the current warming period. And, how or what are the factors that drove the LIA or MWP different than today? Is that so hard? (skeptics don’t have to answer that, AGW people do) The argument that AGW people put forward that “settled” it was that ” it was local and not world wide. The evidence is otherwise. The question for AGW concerning the LIA and MWP remains.
In recent years it has been of interest that the climate record keeps being adjusted. How many times does it need adjusting? It was definitely adjusted when they threw away the original records. They said so. By how much, who knows? Only the fiche knows, good luck trying to get access to it.
AGW is a religious argument, not a scientific.

Reply to  rishrac
April 9, 2016 3:48 am

Only if the law determines such data retention can the data be asked for, so were the NGO under legal obligation to retain data for 20 years? If not then that data can not be legally demanded

Reply to  Mark
April 9, 2016 6:15 pm

That’s true. The problem is that it seems they are trying to apply these precedents retro actively.They are using fraud as the catch all for skeptics while they are ignoring any question, while asserting that AGW is a fact. We are guilty of fraud by fiat. Any trial will be a kangaroo court. By standing, in their view, in the way of saving the planet. Whatever that means.

April 9, 2016 2:59 am

Please tell me the subpoena is dated 1. of April.

Johann Wundersamer
April 9, 2016 3:07 am

The green parole :
My science is as bad as to be protected by the Attorney General !

April 9, 2016 3:11 am

Seems that the enlightenment concept of a rational Federal democracy governed by written rules, is running into trouble as the language inevitably mutates.
Government by algorithm (or Al Goreithm?) = Goedel’s theorem in action.
To have sensible rule, better to have stuck with a real live human monarch, rather than hordes of Cymini Sectores (aka lawyers) …. who can be purchased.

April 9, 2016 3:37 am

The problem with this is that most Government officials – elected or job holders have almost no science knowledge at all. They believe that science uses consensus. They are informed everyday of that ‘fact’.
As with any case like this, when/if you get your day in court, you have to hit them hard with every single argument and device you have available.
no more no less.

April 9, 2016 3:47 am

On either side of the debate, there is no actual proof of AGW or no AGW. Exxon nor anyone else has any science that proves anything.
All the best oceanographers and atmospheric scientists cannot figure this out, because the science is not empirical in many aspects, so no “hidden proof” can exist.
Is Gore saying Exxon and co discovered what the IPCC could not, 10 years ago..
One one applies basic logical questioning, this mess is revealed as the nonsense it is

wayne Job
April 9, 2016 3:48 am

I am from OZ but this is ridiculous, time I think for the big guns in the legal industry to step forward and offer their services for free. If they do not and Hillary gets into power America is lost to the new world government.
This coming twelve months is the battle for American freedom, I hate to think of the future of the world with no real America, if the worst comes to the worst, Texas has an out clause and the revolution will start from there. Well paid legal gurus do something for your country, not just your bank balance.

April 9, 2016 4:08 am

Typical American Leftist Lawfare.
Opression against people with different opinions.

April 9, 2016 4:18 am

Perhaps in a sense this is a welcome development in that the “phony war” is now over and the ruthless ambitions and malice of the Al Gore team are now laid bare for all to see, if they wish to.
It will be interesting to watch the reactions of ,say the BBC and the Guardian to this development. Do they stand up for freedom of belief and individual and corporate rights (within the law) or support suppression by any means available of thought deemed unacceptable to the US govt on a scientific subject still considered by many to be far from settled.
I fear that I already know the answer to that question.

April 9, 2016 4:21 am

Josh ‎ made a tweet the other day about the “pause” turning 58 years old according to some old meteorological balloon data that seems to show around 58 years of pause. 58 years!
Josh was referring to a Tony Heller find and his post here:
No mention of the possibility of a coming carton on the find from Josh. And H/T to Scottish-Sceptic and his post on Josh here:

April 9, 2016 4:22 am

yeah.this gem just goes to show..
just how…Exceptional uSSa is becoming
as to exactly what form of exceptional ?
lets just say it wouldnt be complimentary or prob printable
the biggest worry I have is our brain dead brown nosing pollies following slavishly on any “suggestions” by the clown in chief and his mil and other goons.
god or some deity help us all

Reply to  ozspeaksup
April 9, 2016 3:00 pm

You’ll need plenty of that in a Gul-AG

Johann Wundersamer
April 9, 2016 4:22 am

Western states are democratic, secular and tolerant –
– the people is the sovereign and elects it’s administration
– freedom of mind and speech is not to be questioned
– religions are tolerated, in no way they have to interfere with states administration or freedom of the people.
– science is judged by the natural physically real existing world – justice has none expertise in there.

Everybody feel free to contribute to and / or correct that list.
Regards – Hans

April 9, 2016 4:22 am

A post about Josh went into oblivion (not moderation). Josh?
[Don’t know specifics. Will look. .mod]

Bob boder
April 9, 2016 4:25 am

Why does everyone think that Exxon or any big corporation is against all the regulation and control that comes from the green movement. Regulation and government controls eliminate any possibility of competition from smaller companies and new viable technologies. This cements their position and eliminates the need for them to innovate to stay competitive. How much of a fight did the big insurance companies put up over Obamacare, zero they were all for it. When was the last time you saw an auto manufacturer complain about meeting fuel economy regulations or emissions regulation, never. All of these companies donate heavily to the politician that push these regulations, if the energy companies are on any side it’s the CAGW side.

April 9, 2016 4:27 am

The word is lawfare, “…the illegitimate use of domestic or international law with the intention of damaging an opponent, winning a public relations victory, financially crippling an opponent, or tying up the opponent’s time so that they cannot pursue other ventures….”

chris moffatt
April 9, 2016 4:47 am

Back when the United States had a constitution one of the sections was worded thus:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. “

Reply to  chris moffatt
April 11, 2016 6:00 am

This is the same CEI that uses FOIA as a means to obtain subpoenas to harass people for their emails and other communications. There’s a saying “What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander”.

April 9, 2016 4:50 am

CEI had better take this opportunity to take the offense, and have a few smoking gun questions to expose this fraud. Real science only needs 1 experiment to reject the Null/Status quo.
1) Expose the fraud of temperature “adjustments.” Demonstrate how data over time has been manipulated, so there is no reliable data source to use to reach a valid conclusion.
2) Apply the scientific method to the ice core data to prove that the temperature variation over the past 150 years is well within the norm of the Holocene. Also point out that all ice core data show a Medieval, Roman, Minoan Warming Periods, and a Little Ice Age. The Hockeystick erases the MWP and LIA.
3) Ask why all other temperature reconstructions, like the one used in the 1990 IPCC report were rejected once the unreproducible Hockeystick was introduced.
4) Ask for the Hockeystick to be reproduced in an Open Source Manner. Request that transparency be demanded in the next temperature reconstruction. Demand an open source temperature reconstruction to prove your innocence.
5) Demand an open source climate model to prove your innocence.
6) All the IPCC models have failed. Their failure proves your skepticism is justified. The IPCC model failures prove the IPCC is the one misleading the public.
7) The oceans are warming, demand an experiment that proves the IR trapped by CO2, between 13 and 18µ can warm water. A simple IR light shining 13 and 18µ at 1.3W/M^2 should make the point.
8) Ask how glaciers, 5,000 feet above the freeze line can melt due to CO2.
9) How can the marginal changes in CO2 cause such “extreme” weather events? The marginal impact to the energy budget due to small changes in CO2 are negligible.
10) You can fry an egg in a pan in death valley. How is that due to CO2? If it were due to CO2 you would be able to fry an egg in the shade of a tree. You can’t. Visible light, not IR is causing the warming.
11) How can CO2 ever cause a record daytime temperature? That is due to incoming visible light, not IR.
12) If CO2 was the cause, climate with only CO2 and no H2O would show a narrowing between Daytime and Nighttime temperatures. The Deserts and Antarctica so no trend, in fact, Antarctica has been slightly cooling over the past 50 years.

Reply to  co2islife
April 9, 2016 6:02 pm

Just hand the jury each a bowl of soup at room temperature. Have them all blow their highly enriched CO2 exhale on it until it’s temperature is raised by 33C. Keep replacing exhausted jurors until you deplete the jury pool.
Unless the soup boils, AGW is proven false.

Reply to  FTOP_T
April 11, 2016 9:53 am

Nobody has ever argued that CO2 can create heat.
Your analogy is so flawed that you should be embarrassed by it.

Reply to  co2islife
April 10, 2016 11:24 pm

Its simpler than that – this is based on the EPA endangerment finding, without that there is essentially no case to answer. However the EPA DID NOT address the implications of low CO2 which is an existential threat – That is if the EPA finding led to the invention of a planetary CO2 scrubber which was deployed under EPA Authority and drove CO2 Below 200 PPM all of humanity would DIE.
This failure to address the essential trace gas status amounts to a default on the governments role to protect it’s citizens. Now if You acknowledge that CO2 too high is a threat and too low is also a threat then the EPA would have to define an OPTIMAL CO2 target. This is not what the finding does, so the EPA has put the population of the USA (actually, of the world) at risk of LOW CO2 which is unconstitutional threat to life, liberty and justice. A Finding based on this argument would send the EPA back to the drawing board potentially with a republican president to deal with. This is the tactic I would use a constitutional challenge on the endangerment findings lack of completeness.

April 9, 2016 5:35 am

This documentary exposes many examples of the tactics used by the totalitarian leftists. They are truly shameful.

April 9, 2016 5:44 am

What would happen if CEI ignores the subpoena?

D.J. Hawkins
Reply to  AGW_Skeptic
April 9, 2016 11:13 am

“Silence before the law implies consent”. If they don’t contest it there will be a default judgement against them and then the AG will attempt to enforce the order by having folks with guns show up to cart stuff away.

Reply to  D.J. Hawkins
April 9, 2016 1:15 pm

Which is also so American. CEI clerks surely need to be shot dead if they fail to hand over all their ‘base’.

Bruce Cobb
April 9, 2016 6:11 am

It is a gross and flagrant abuse of power, meant to intimidate, sow fear, and to silence.
And I never thought I would say it, but it is precisely this sort of thing which would allow me, a once-straight-ticket Democrat to vote for Trump should he become the Rep. nominee.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
April 9, 2016 6:57 am

As will I. Trump or cruz. As for this lawsuit, bring it on

April 9, 2016 6:30 am

The common factor with advocates of climate change is not the details of how much change is taking place, but the solution they demand. While their models have widely varying projections, the policy goals all share the common goal: to suppress the use of energy in general and energy usage by the US in particular. The issue of “climate change” is far more about reducing liberty and prosperity than it is about protecting our biosphere.

Tom Judd
April 9, 2016 6:55 am

As near as I can tell there’s a federal law that states that if the costs are significant for gathering the records requested in a subpoena then the entity requesting the records has to bear the costs. A subpoena is not ‘free’. I know this from personal experience. Let the good people of the Virgin Islands (not the most well-to-do place on this earth) bear the full costs of their politically motivated AG and see how well they like his throwing away of their money.

Reply to  Tom Judd
April 9, 2016 7:31 am

Those people will never know it was spent that way. Politicians will see to that! How to you think they keep getting elected?

April 9, 2016 7:05 am

[SNIP Agreed, way off topic as well. Anthony]
[Going to leave this one in the queue. Don’t think we should open this very emotional, very political, very religious, very righteous/wrongous subject at all here. .mod]

Reply to  co2islife
April 9, 2016 9:57 am

[SNIP Agreed, way off topic as well. Anthony]
[Going to leave this one in the queue. Don’t think we should open this very emotional, very political, very religious, very righteous/wrongous subject at all here. .mod]

Sorry, but you must admit that the hypocrisy is of biblical proportions. My point was that the denier approach can be applied from both sides of the political spectrum, but the political right doesn’t. I’ve always maintained that the political right has to stop playing defense and take the offense. Fight them using the tactics that they us on the right. They rely on Alynsky tactics, and playing fair is never a consideration of the political left. My example was to highlight that the right can make the denier claims, and have the facts and truth on their side. Unfortunately, as demonstrated, even on like minded sites, the comments will get moderated.
[No, I don’t agree with your position on this comment at all. Abortion won’t be discussed here. it’s off-topic, and irrelevant to the issue – my house, my policy. -Anthony]

Reply to  co2islife
April 9, 2016 1:33 pm

CO2islife has made many contributions here. I am much more interested in what he has to say, than what makes some backwoods college dropout upset due to his past as a preacher.
You need to stop trying to play ”my house” then ”biggest public forum on climate in the world.”
You’re a hypocrite. Furthermore a lot of these problems stem directly from your constant fence jumping as faux hero and Beverly Hillbillies class ‘home visit’ sponsor.
Nobody can stand you Watts you personally drive the skeptical movement to this. You’re the biggest voice skeptics have, yes?
That means you’re their leader. Instead you act like a pedantic little bitch.
I’ll never say another good word about you.
[I was a preacher? News to me! My goodness, what a childish response, say whatever you want, it means nothing since you are using a fake name and a fake email address, making comments from a proxy to hide your identity.
Decimal: 3104946404
ASN: 60781
ISP: LeaseWeb Netherlands B.V.
Organization: LeaseWeb Netherlands B.V.
Services: Confirmed proxy server
Tor exit node
Recently reported forum spam source.
Gotta love moral lectures from a person too cowardly to put their real name behind their words, who is sockpuppeting under other names here. Please feel free to be as upset as you wish.- Anthony]

Reply to  co2islife
April 9, 2016 6:47 pm

co2islife wrote: “They rely on Alynsky tactics, and playing fair is never a consideration of the political left.”
The Left thinks it and only it, has the moral high ground. The Left thinks their politial opponents have no moral standing at all. They look at the political opposition as unthinking, animalistic, tribal, neanderthals who cannot be allowed to come to power.
If you see your political opponents as being utterly dispicable, then anything is legitmate, in your mind, in order to defeat them, including illegal, and violent activity. That’s the way the Left sees the Right.
If it were a choice between electing an “honest” politican or electing a serial killer, the choice is obvious: You will do everything in your power to see that the serial killer is not elected. Who would want that kind of moral degenerate running their lives?
The Left looks at the Right as serial killers. They have no compunction about going against the Right with any tactic that will work, no matter what it is, or how immoral it is. The ends justify the means, they say to themselves.
This election season the American Left is just getting wound up. Their insanity and delusion will be on full display, along with their penchant for violence and for shutting up the politican opposition.
The American Left is turning into a bunch of fascists.
It’s going to be interesting.

old construction worker
April 9, 2016 7:06 am

Where can I donate to CEI. I want on that list of donors

Tom Judd
Reply to  old construction worker
April 9, 2016 1:48 pm

Please don’t take this in offense. I congratulate your attitude. But, I find it interesting that you use a ‘handle’ for your comments on this website but want your full name in front of an AG’s snake-like face. Again, I mean no offense. I used a ‘handle’ for years here. I just pointed this out in a spirit of levity. Best wishes.

April 9, 2016 7:08 am

By the esy the ag ealker is a former epa lawyer, surprise,surprise

April 9, 2016 7:29 am

I just went to the CEI website and made a donation!! I’d encourage all of you to do the same as one donation of $20 doesn’t amount to much but a THOUSAND donations of $20 is much better. We must put our money where out mouth is people. Sitting on the sideline isn’t going to stop it!

old construction worker
April 9, 2016 7:37 am

I just went to the CEI website and made a monthly recurring monthly donation!
This is going to be a long drawn out fight.
I hope the “warmest” understand the law is a double edge sword.

April 9, 2016 7:46 am

I hope the CEI tell Gore and his running dogs to “Foxtrot Oscar”.

John West
April 9, 2016 7:59 am

So, this is a fishing expedition to uncover evidence that Exxon gained from false pretense in that it didn’t represent its products and actions as contributing to climate change. Legally the representation would have to relate to a material past or existing fact not a theory, prediction, projection, hypothesis, or speculation. A representation concerning a future state of facts or merely an expression of opinion is not sufficient. Almost all human activities could be said to contribute to climate change (hardly a fact), are farmers being similarly persecuted? Would Virgin Islanders have bought those Bananas if they knew their production and transportation had contributed to climate change? Investigate and punish Chiquita, NOW!
It’s like I’m living in a surreal nightmare inspired by 1984.

Reply to  John West
April 10, 2016 9:47 am

or Kafka

Bill H
April 9, 2016 8:00 am

As a retired police officer two questions come to mind.
1) Who was the judge who signed the subpoena.
2) What legal precedent and law was the subpoena based on.
Had I submitted a request for a subpoena to obtain records this broad and without any causal link clearly defined, I would have been laughed out of the court and then sanctioned for an attempted abuse of power. This would have ended my career as a deputy and an investigator.
The judge who signed this document and the lawyer who presented it should be disbarred. This is a flagrant abuse of judicial process. If Gore is involved, you can bet they went judge shopping.

Bill H
April 9, 2016 8:04 am

I think CEI should file for an injunction in federal court.. Citing lack of relevance and abuse of powers. Stop this BS cold!

April 9, 2016 8:26 am

I’ve been expecting it. The environmental fascists/commies/dictator wannabes/idiots(But don’t think they aren’t smart. I use idiot in the sense of what they are doing to everyone else.) have long used legal actions to accomplish what they can’t with facts, laws, or public opinion.

April 9, 2016 8:34 am

It all starts at the top. How does a POTUS sponsor something like this in a free country?
Please spare us the “he had nothing to do with it” nonsense.

CD in Wisconsin
April 9, 2016 8:37 am

Censorship through legal intimidation. The totalitarian element in climate alarmism rears its ugly head….something every freedom-loving individual in all nations where human rights are respected should comdemn.

April 9, 2016 8:39 am

The reference to McCarthyism is well placed. America has a long history of this sort of thing. Our republic has never been perfect, and far from it. We’re still susceptible to lies and superstition, blind nationalism and patriotism, consensus and mob rules. I go back to what I’ve always said about “Global Warming,” it will put a major hurt on science once the hysteria subsides and everyone realizes the planet is doing just fine and simply going through it’s normal healthy stages and change. Since “98%” of scientists have endorsed global warming, then 98% of science will be proven wrong. People will scoff for many years because of that. And I’m not the only one who’s said this.

Reply to  Gary
April 9, 2016 8:53 am

‘97%’ not 98- don’t give them one more than they claim and they shouldn’t Ever get away with the claim.

Reply to  Gary
April 9, 2016 2:10 pm

It is worse than McCarthyism in at least three respects.
Communism was a real threat to the United States for many years, particularly in the couple of decades following World War 2. The Soviet Union used the information from spies to build their own atomic bomb, shifting the balance of power and making a nuclear arms race inevitable.
The Soviets were aggressive in their expansionism – for instance in the blockade of Berlin, and the takeover of Eastern Europe. There was a real fear of a new nuclear war. There is no established big threat from global warming. Indeed the strength of the evidence for human-caused global warming is inversely related to the size of the threat.
The third is that the threat of nuclear war could be counter-balanced. Although a frightening scenario to live under, the cold war policy of mutually assured destruction kept the peace for over 40 years. US policy on curbing emissions is ineffectual in the context of global GHG emissions. Whatever the policy countries do, global emissions will go on rising for decades as China, India, other Asian countries and then African countries grow their emissions.

Reply to  Gary
April 10, 2016 9:18 am

McCarthy underestimated the number of Communist subversion agents in the US. If people had listened to him, we wouldn’t be in the mess we are today.

April 9, 2016 8:55 am

Rogerthesurf. Not only is this like the Chinese government of Mao Tse Tung in the so-called “great leap forward” in 1958 – 1961, but in that period, people who tried to report that there were food shortages, or who moved to neighbouring areas to find food were called “deniers”. They were denying the famine (or the lack thereof according to the government) which is estimated to have killed 50 million people.

Pamela Gray
April 9, 2016 9:14 am

I believe in Climate Change. It goes up. It goes down. Warm is good and has allowed humans to successfully build a modern world and has allowed flora and fauna to expand around the globe. Cold is bad and will tear down both flora and fauna as well as the modern world, taking no mind as to who believed in AGW and who believed in natural drivers.
When do I report for jail and when do I get my free speech muzzle? Just wanna be prepared and ready when they knock on my door.

April 9, 2016 9:25 am

it is truly disturbing what’s going on and I hope you are correct that the Climate Alarmists’ radical agenda will be the death of it. I’m not sure, as it’s become a religion for many people. Oh and we actually have a sitting U.S. Senator (Sheldon Whitehouse) who wants to use RICO laws to prosecute those on the “wrong” side of the debate.

Gunga Din
April 9, 2016 9:47 am

CEI to AG: “We’ll see your request for our emails and raise you Michael Mann’s.”

April 9, 2016 9:47 am

We still have spring, summer, fall, and winter in Canada. Which makes me wonder which of these climates have changed in America? You know – the one (climate) they’re suing for that’s now missing?

April 9, 2016 10:17 am

I cannot imagine the AG has a legal leg to stand on in its pursuit of that information.

Robert of Ottawa
Reply to  Chad Jessup
April 9, 2016 10:56 am

As I say later, it doesn’t matter if there is no case to be made, or legal leg to stand on. It is the process that is the weapon and punishment. The AG can spin this out as long as his political allies control the government purse.

Reply to  Chad Jessup
April 9, 2016 6:55 pm

You are correct, he doesn’t have a legal leg to stand on.

April 9, 2016 10:27 am

More like Lysenkoism than McCarthyism.

April 9, 2016 10:53 am

Last year marked the 800th Anniversary of Magna Carta. I suggest these AG’s and Al Gore should actually read it, probably for the very first time.
Magna Carta is the source for our Rule of Law, and the peace and prosperity enjoyed by all the nations that benefit from it. Rule of Law is now under threat from scoundrels and imbeciles.
Cl. 39 and 40 of Magna Carta read as follows:
[39] No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.
[40] To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.
Regards to all, Allan

Reply to  Allan MacRae
April 9, 2016 7:36 pm

The Magna Carta was incorporated into U.S. law at the time of the founding of the country. SCOTUS has also ruled on this as valid.
Will Americans have to fall back on the Magna Carta to protect themselves?

Reply to  Barbara
April 9, 2016 7:48 pm

Barbara asks: “Will Americans have to fall back on the Magna Carta to protect themselves?”
Let’s hope it goes only that far.
Remember, there’s always recourse to Rule .308 (known as “Rule .303” in Canada).

Robert of Ottawa
April 9, 2016 10:53 am

Unfortunately, this is not hysterical executive overreach but a concerted, planned and coordinated attack on political enemies, using the apparatus of the “justice system”. Remember, with all these without-law cases, it is the process that is the punishment.

Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
April 9, 2016 12:24 pm

These actions by the AG of the US Virgin Islands constitute Misfeasance in Office – the AG can be sued by his victims and if the lawsu9it is successful he could be removed from office.
“Malfeasance in office, or official misconduct, is the commission of an unlawful act, done in an official capacity, which affects the performance of official duties. Malfeasance in office is often grounds for a for cause removal of an elected official by statute or recall election.”
In Commonwealth countries it is termed Misfeasance in Public Office.

Steve Fraser
April 9, 2016 11:19 am

CEI was not the only company to get a subpoena. DCI Group also did.

Tom in Florida
April 9, 2016 11:38 am

Have you all acquired your guns yet because that would be the next thing on their agenda. A disarmed populace is easily controlled. It is getting very close to the real tipping point in these matters.

Rick C PE
April 9, 2016 11:43 am

The AG for the US Virgin Islands?? Really? Why not the NY, VT or MA AGS (all in Al Gore’s anti-skeptics club)? Maybe because their states have anti-SLAPP laws!

Reply to  Rick C PE
April 9, 2016 12:45 pm

Good call Rick re US Virgin Islands. Note from below:.
“It has been argued that the lack of uniform protection against SLAPPs has encouraged forum shopping.”
Twenty-eight states, the District of Columbia, and Guam have enacted statutory protections against SLAPPs.[27][verification needed] These states are Arizona, Arkansas, California, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota,[28] Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas,[29][30] Utah, Vermont, and Washington. In Colorado and West Virginia, the courts have adopted protections against SLAPPs. These laws vary dramatically in scope and level of protection, and the remaining states lack specific protections.
There is no federal anti-SLAPP law. The extent to which state laws apply in federal courts is unclear, and the circuits are split on the question. The First,[31] Fifth[32] and Ninth[33] circuits have allowed litigants from Maine, Louisiana and California, respectively, to use their state’s special motion in federal district courts in diversity actions. The D.C. Circuit has held the reverse for D.C. litigants.[34]
It has been argued that the lack of uniform protection against SLAPPs has encouraged forum shopping; proponents of federal legislation have argued that the uncertainty about one’s level of protection has likely magnified the chilling effect of SLAPPs.[35]
In December 2009, Rep. Steve Cohen (D–Tennessee) introduced the Citizen Participation Act in the U.S. House.[36] This marks the first time the Congress has considered federal anti-SLAPP legislation, though the Congress enacted the SPEECH Act on the closely related issue of libel tourism.[37] Like many state anti-SLAPP laws, H.R. 4364 would allow the defendant of a SLAPP to have the suit quickly dismissed and to recover fees and costs

Reply to  Allan MacRae
April 9, 2016 1:21 pm

Allan MacRae observes that:

There is no federal anti-SLAPP law.

Open question: what would be the characteristics of an ideal federal anti-SLAPP statute?

April 9, 2016 12:32 pm

Citing Wikipedia on McCarthy is like citing Wikipedia on Climate Change.
In many cases, McCarthy was right

Reply to  Taphonomic
April 9, 2016 1:26 pm

It’s never a bad idea to draw a brief quotation from a work cited. From Ms. Coulter’s 2012 article:

McCarthy explained that he had said he had the names of 57 communists or communist sympathizers working in the State Department who needed to be investigated. Separately, he cited a 1946 letter from former Secretary of State James Byrnes to Congress stating that there were 205 known security risks still working there.
His point, misconstrued by Democrats at the time and since, was not to accuse specific individuals, but rather to indict the Democrats for turning a blind eye to ridiculous security risks in important government jobs, even after Julius and Ethel Rosenberg and Alger Hiss. (Sorry, Nation magazine, they’re still guilty.)
McCarthy gave his Wheeling, W.Va., speech two weeks after Secretary of State Dean Acheson had defended celebrity communist spy Hiss on Jan. 25, 1950 — the day of Hiss’ criminal conviction for denying under oath that he was a Soviet spy.
Even after Whittaker Chambers had produced documents proving that Hiss was working for the Soviet Union while advising President Roosevelt, the Democrats were still defending a traitor. Chambers said of Acheson’s disgusting defense of Hiss, “You will look in vain in history for anything comparable to it.”
As Democrats always do when they are caught red-handed, they obsessed on some small, technical error of a Republican.

Of course, recent history gives us Hitlery, her multitude of malfeasances in public office, and the National Socialist Democrat American Party (NSDAP) indifference thereto as something quite “comparable to it.”

April 9, 2016 12:43 pm

I’m suprised nobody has posted this…

April 9, 2016 1:10 pm

So Al could only buy the “Attorney General” of the U.S. Virgins Islands! U.S. Virgin Islands, an unincorporated though organized territory of the U.S., just a few kilometers from the British Virgin Island, known for tourism and money laundering operations and mentioned very prominently in the “Panama Papers”.
Al outs Al yet again to great fanfare.
Ha ha ja ja

April 9, 2016 1:14 pm

When this has all run its course, I don’t think that those US Virgin Islands will be virgin any longer.

Bill J.
April 9, 2016 1:19 pm

[snip – fake name, fake email address, sockpuppeting -mod]

Tony D
April 9, 2016 1:27 pm

[snip – fake, name, fake email address, sockpuppeting -mod]

Ron Clutz
April 9, 2016 1:27 pm

If you go to St. Thomas V.I. you can visit the castle of the vicious pirate Blackbeard. Maybe he is making a comeback.

April 9, 2016 2:20 pm

Boycott the USVI’s.
Donate to any defense fund.
Demand that climate imperialists be held to account for their attacks on civil society.

April 9, 2016 2:47 pm

I hope CEI’s computer hard drives crash like the one at the IRS did in the targeting of tea party groups.
And I also hope that CEI delays, delays, and delays the release of whatever they have. Eff the left.

April 9, 2016 3:12 pm

A few facts by way of background and not necessarily pertinent to the lawsuit.
The US Virgin Islands produces most of its energy from oil and runs oil-fired desalination plants.
Until 2012 it had a mega oil refinery. It went broke and was closed down, much to the chagrin of the US Virgin Islands government, who wanted it to remain open. They are suing Hess Corporation over this. It is now just a storeage facility.
Tourism is a major industry. They have two airports but most tourists arrive on cruise ships fuelled by ExxonMobil’s finest, or perhaps someone else’s finest.
I can’t find current figures, but I suspect the US Virgin Islands has a higher per capita C02 output than the USA as a whole.
The AG should sue his own Governor.

Jim G1
April 9, 2016 4:07 pm

Don’t like the use of “McCarthyite” in a negative context as Joe McCarthy was right about all of the communists in Hollywood and there are even more today. They just call themselves Democrats now.

April 9, 2016 4:17 pm

Is there an account I could contribute towards the legal costs?
If there is none, I think it should be set up. I recon many readers here would be more than happy to pitch in.

Reply to  Janus
April 13, 2016 12:44 pm

Hi Janus,
You can easily go to to help CEI!

April 9, 2016 4:27 pm

Next step – by presidential decree there will be a warmista pledge that must be spoken by every American. “I formally declare that I believe in catastrophic human-driven climate change.” Anyone who refuses to take the pledge will be sent for “re-education.”

Phil R
April 9, 2016 5:03 pm

Eric Worrall,
Just read this post and don’t know if you’re still monitoring or whether this has been addressed before, but PLEASE, PLEASE, STOP letting them define the issue, write the narrative, and put yourself on the defensive!! When they say “Climate Change,” respond with “Global Warming!” That was the issue and that is the issue, and it is not happening. That’s why they changed the narrative to “climate change.” Keep pushing back with global warming, and sooner or later someone on the prosecutorial side will have to address it.

April 9, 2016 5:33 pm

Despite the obvious attempt to intimidate and silence people who have the right to express their views this
is exactly what the fraud called global warming needs . The massive scale of lies from the global warming cult will be on full display. It is disturbing that this type of behaviour is even condoned in a democratic society where rights people fought to preserve are dismissed by the earth has a fever promoters .
Climate changes( shocking isn’t it ) ,and thankfully it has been warming as we come out of an ice age .If humans play some small role well great, drinks all around . Warming when it occurs with associated higher levels of CO2 are beneficial to life on earth . Proven fact .
If the government really could provide evidence that warming is the big bad wolf they claim then why are green houses trying to create CO2 to foster plant growth ? And they are legal ? Wouldn’t fish benefit from a bigger swimming pool ? Let’s hope for more warming . Hey even less fossil fuels will be needed and maybe 40,000 people per year in Europe won’t die because of fuel poverty caused by stupid government policy blunders and subsidies to bird blenders .
Mother nature rules, and despite the global warming industry cult being full of self important hypocrites ,humans are not setting the earth’s thermostat now or ever . Any nut job that thinks some jackasses are going to sit in a room and prescribe the optimal earth temperature needs help .
Agree with me or not I don’t care but F!@k with my right to say what I think and we have a big
problem .

Carl Terrebonne
April 9, 2016 6:28 pm

There seems to be an incoherent skeptical movement that never takes off and gets any real steam. What is the main problem getting the message out about the flaws in the AGW theory?

April 9, 2016 6:34 pm

It seems inconceivable that no one in the entire skeptical movement can simply explain the position of skeptics well enough that people overall get the picture that CO2 is a tiny quantity of mass amid a much, much larger mass, and if it were leveraging something unusual everyone would already be aware of that usage in common hobby, industry, and even experimental education.
CO2 has lower specific heat than air as a whole.
The sole possibility for temperature change is more CO2, to be loading the system through more H2O and it’s (H2O’s) higher specific heat.
Someone should print a pamphlet explaining how the temperature of a volume of atmospheric air is calculated and simply say – there isn’t any reference to any particular ”effect” in calculating these temperatures.

Reply to  Don
April 9, 2016 8:01 pm

Don writes: “It seems inconceivable that no one in the entire skeptical movement can simply explain the position of skeptics well enough….”
Well, there are a number of fairly simple and accessible pamphlets that had been prepared by Jo Nova and her associates. These have been maintained online via her Web log:
The Skeptics Handbook (June 2009)
The Skeptics Handbook II: Global Bullies want your money (November 2009)
Climate Money: The Climate Industry: $79 billion so far – trillions to come (21 July 2009)
The information aggregated in these digital pamphlets is sufficiently robust that Ms. Nova obviously hasn’t felt much need to utter revised editions.

April 9, 2016 9:45 pm

Carl ,Good question re … (main problem getting the message out ) Not sure if it is any one thing but many in the media are not scientifically literate so they rely on “scientists ” or organizations who the media can claim as sources beyond repute . Al Gore for example , with basically no science background ,used the vagueness of “the science is settled ” and scientists tell us language as cover to provide the air of scientific proof or concencious when in fact tens of thousands of scientists don’t agree with the alarmist exaggeration of the global warming industry . Many in the media bought it , and sold it hard because most of them no longer had the will or resources to question . They also wanted to transition their failing business model with a drive to electronic versions and be seen as green to get customers to think they were saving the planet in doing so . Bottom line, initially and for many years most in the media were so busy pumping scary global warming stories out they were never going to back off their new found source of unsubstantiated and overblown earth catastrophe stories that could be churned out at will with no accountability .
The same intimidation technique (reduced funding and job security ) that was deployed against scientists is now being modified to try and bully “deniers ” into silence . The scientist have served their purpose.
The positive news is there are more and more scientists no longer prepared to let the abuse of the scientific method continue and more in the media with some backbone open to both sides if not outright condemnation for one of the biggest frauds in history .
When Time magazine was pumping .. be afraid be very afraid global cooling stories in the 1970’s did they ever print a retraction when it was obvious the world wasn’t turning to an ice ball ? No, they just let time wash away the evidence till they and other media could pump the global warming scare . The global cooling scare was also supported with references to scientists that were apparently credible . Where are they now ?
The difference this time is the $$Trillion industry hatched around carbon credits , grants to renewables , massive tax increases , hedge fund gamblers , supportive research , climate modellers , jobs for climate police and who can forget the green lobby groups relying on peoples fear for fund raising campaigns to save things like growing populations of drowning Polar bears .
The message is getting out thanks to Climate Gate , goofy failed predictions of an ice free Arctic , jail time for an EPA senior manager , no warming in almost 20 years , and a growing body of knowledge and experts that the promoters of scary global warming cannot contain . The big bad climate wolf is now ignored by the public because that have real concerns they want addressed and they no longer see fuel poverty as a good reason to die .
The global warming promoters knew it was over when they raced to replace and rebrand global warming with the vague term climate change . Everyone knew they still meant scary global warming but the evidence was showing them to be shall we say misleading . Some would simply say bald face liars .
Consistent and unrelenting truth about the overblown global warming fraud combined with peoples own sense of honesty will continue to push the scary global warming (climate change ) industry out where it belongs . Trash .

April 9, 2016 9:52 pm

If these people are willing to use the law to bully people they disagree with in violation of the Constitution, what other illegal activities are they willing to resort to in behalf of their “cause”?

April 9, 2016 10:25 pm

Let’s keep “McCarthy” out of it becasue he was ultimately proven to be moslty right. The AGW folks are more like the facists and communists that McCarthy was fighting.

April 10, 2016 2:53 am

Oh Craig that was absolutely beautiful in the way it shows your total ignorance. Rather than point out how the article could be wrong you just went on a major rant which I found astoundingly immature.

April 10, 2016 7:07 am

Deception and lying for corporate profit are not protected by the first amendment. The tobacco lobby was taken down for the same reason.

Reply to  Luke
April 10, 2016 8:13 am

So when Phiddling Phil Jones admitted in his Feb 2010 BBC don’t-go-to-jail interview that he had been deceiving and lying for 12 years, faking warming he fabricated and added to global temperature databases,
that isn’t protected by the first amendment – you finally admit that.
And when Angry Bird Mikey Mann told Congress the world was ending but his data was secret in case he needed to profit from it as part of his personal corporate pursuits,
and then accidentally released it on an FTP server
and it was found to make nothing but hundreds upon hundreds of hockey sticks,
you admit: he isn’t protected under the first Amendment when he lied and deceived for his own profits.
And when Rowboat ”selling heating supplies is like running Auchwitz” Hansen told the world he thought the laws of atmospheric energy don’t allow mankind to calculate the temperature of Venus without resort to some fake ”green house effect”
lying and deceiving the world so he could make his corporate book profits,
you admit:
that fraudulent deception isn’t covered by the First Amendment.
And when SKS bloggers were bulldozing science, putting their *OWN* faces onto portraits of Nazis who were murdering and butchering millions and the entire world watched in horror – since they know it didn’t warm any past 1998 – that corporate lying and deceiving isn’t protected under the First Amendment.

April 10, 2016 at 7:07 am
Deception and lying for corporate profit are not protected by the first amendment. The tobacco lobby was taken down for the same reason.

You don’t really have a lot of dignity left after you admitted you know your peoples’ lying and deceiving – reserving to Congress the right to DO that for the sake of their corporate profits – it’s illegal.

Reply to  Junior
April 10, 2016 6:04 pm

RE tobacco lobby take down ? Maybe but not sure I get or agree with the comparison . Co2 helps plants
grow and tobacco burns them with a few added bad and addictive sweeteners thrown in . Most Co2 is from natural sources and no one seems to get all lathered up about those or says we need to control those pesky natural sources . Just the ones from humans . Why is there no shut down green houses lobby ?

Reply to  Luke
April 10, 2016 5:53 pm

Patch’s is pulling out all stops but the courts will look at the facts as they should . Deflection , set up , really ? … three times ? Ok go with that . We will see who is credible .

c116840 - Mr. c116840 to you, B*TCH.
April 10, 2016 8:22 am

[No, wrong response. Your remaining words are also pruned. With extreme prejudice. .mod]

April 10, 2016 8:56 am

The court case, when it comes, will be a good opportunity to turn this around in a way that puts the warmists on the defensive. CEI should focus on challenging the claimed “consensus” on anthropogenic warming, and in particular concentrate attention on natural climate changes and oscillations on multiple timescales, from glacials and interglacials to changes in the coldness of winter or wetness of summer from year to year. Then demand of the prosecution that, if they are so sure that recent warming is anthropogenic, when so many other similar warming episodes during the Holocene have not been anthropogenic, then they must show how they base this claim on a robust understanding of the causes and mechanisms of natural climate change. Without demonstrating such an understanding, claims that recent warming are mainly anthropogenic have no scientific or logical basis. Whereas in the scientific community they can get away with this dissonance, in a court of law they will not be able to.
The reality of course is that despite billions spent on computers and complex simulations, we are as far away as we have ever been from understanding climate, from being anywhere near a transition from descriptive to analytical. Bring this fact into the spotlight. Turn the heat on the warmists are hold up their arrogant and vacuous hubris for all to see.

Reply to  belousov
April 10, 2016 9:20 am

Good luck with that.

April 10, 2016 9:33 am

who is John Galt

April 10, 2016 12:45 pm

The slow kids have come out to play law.

April 10, 2016 1:40 pm

What we are witnessing in this latest attempt to bully, silence and intimidate from the earth has a fever industry is not unlike the last minute of a typical fireworks display . The show is almost over , people are leaving and they are sending anything left up at once .
It is a fitting end because the scary global warming promoters have walked into a bear trap set by themselves .
Maybe they can bring in a few character witnesses to show the court how solid their soap box is .
A few potentials:
How is former IPCC Chair Pachauri ‘s alleged sexual harassment case going ? The warmists made him do it claim ? India’s court will sort that out soon .
Has former senior EPA manager Beale finished his prison term for felony theft ? Pretending to be CIA really ? All under the watch of that tight ship EPA who paid him for years after he retired .
How is Shukla doing with the Congressional Committee investigation of alleged political activity ( trying to encourage RICO charges against organizations that don’t drink the scary global warming cool aid ) , while his non profit research organization Global Environment Society received over $60 million dollars in federal funds since 2001 ? How did the payments align with George Mason University policies ?
Bring it on AG’s, the world can’t wait to see the cast of characters to be called as witnesses .

April 10, 2016 4:05 pm

Pachauri is now suing the lawyer working for the complainant because she released details of other complainants. He has been protected so far by friends in high places. I am not confident he will be convicted.

kevin kilty
April 10, 2016 4:06 pm

This news is almost too bizarre to comprehend fully at this time, but two thoughts occur to me.
First, it seems apparent that the U.S. dodged the bullet, as people say, when Gore could not win his efforts at recount in 2000. He becomes more unhinged and tyrannical with each passing year, and one ought to wonder what the pressures of the office of POTUS might have pushed him toward.
Second, someone mentioned the need for strong, universal anti-SLAPP protection. But the case between Mann and Steyn shows the folly of such a hope. Bad actors simply go judge-shopping in all jurisdictions. It is all too easy to find sitting judges who do not understand the law and cannot be educated. They make incoherent rulings and ball up a case so that the anti-SLAPP law becomes SLAPP itself.

April 10, 2016 5:45 pm

I always thought that thought control was practiced by organizations like the Gestapo in the Third Reich and KGB in Stalin’s Russia but I was wrong. Welcome to the American version of thought control. The AG of Virgin Islands has started it up in order to root out those pesky non-believers in the sacred scripture of global warming. This is only the beginning. It took Hitler several years to put Gestapo in full control of what was safe to say. And she is not alone, with RICO people like senator Whitehouse also setting their sights on climate deniers. I hope there are people, right and left, who see this as a danger to our democracy and take appropriate action.

April 10, 2016 5:50 pm

Patch’s is pulling out all stops but the courts will look at the facts as they should . Deflection , set up , really ? … three times ? Ok go with that . We will see who is credible .

Dave Kelly
April 10, 2016 7:19 pm

If I were the CEI I would talk to my attorney about filing a criminal complaint counter-charging “Deprivation of rights under color of law” under 18 U.S. Code § 242. The law states:
“Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.”
The law covers the actions of federal, state, or local officials regardless of wither the official is, or claims to be, acting within the their lawful authority. The law applies if the official’s actions are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties.
And the official cannot claim immunity – it even covers federal judges. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, judges, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim

Reply to  Dave Kelly
April 10, 2016 7:33 pm

Dave Kelly:

If I were the CEI I would talk to my attorney about filing a criminal complaint counter-charging “Deprivation of rights under color of law” under 18 U.S. Code § 242.

Hm. Using a civil rights statute against leftards in government. A definitely poetic approach, though it requires the malevolent jobholders of His Fraudulency’s administration to effect the move, doesn’t it?
Sooner would we see action unsealing Obozo’s college records.

Gloateus Maximus
Reply to  Tucci78
April 10, 2016 7:45 pm

It could happen, in a Cruz Administration.

Dudley Horscroft
Reply to  Dave Kelly
April 11, 2016 12:27 am

Sorry, this is inapplicable. Note the words “on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens”. Since the CEI is manifestly not and alien, and can have no colour or race, this provision can have no application to it.
The purpose of the law is to prevent grater penalties being applied to a person who is not a US citizen, or who has a coloured skin, or who is of a race (however determined) than those applied to a citizen.

Dave Kelly
Reply to  Dudley Horscroft
April 11, 2016 9:55 am

Regarding your statement.
“Sorry, this in inapplicable…. The purpose of the law is to prevent grater penalties being applied to a person who is not a US citizen, or who has a coloured skin, or who is of a race (however determined) than those applied to a citizen.”
No, look at the text of the law more carefully. Note in particular the use of the words “or” in the statue.
For emphasis the part of the statue your citing reads:
“,OR to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, OR race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens,
The statue applies to any attempt to subvert the constitutional rights of any citizen. To quote the FBI:
“U.S. law enforcement officers and other officials like judges, prosecutors, and security guards have been given tremendous power by local, state, and federal government agencies—authority they must have to enforce the law and ensure justice in our country. These powers include the authority to detain and arrest suspects, to search and seize property, to bring criminal charges, to make rulings in court, and to use deadly force in certain situations.
Preventing abuse of this authority, however, is equally necessary to the health of our nation’s democracy. That’s why it’s a federal crime for anyone acting under “color of law” to willfully deprive or conspire to deprive a person of a right protected by the Constitution or U.S. law. “Color of law” simply means the person is using authority given to him or her by a local, state, or federal government agency.”

Dave Kelly
Reply to  Dudley Horscroft
April 11, 2016 10:32 am

Oops, upon further investigation, it looks like your right.
Looks like I’m going to have to eat crow on this on.

April 10, 2016 11:37 pm

The new Gore Effect, putting the chill on free speech.
This is right up there on the absurdity scale with when the Italians prosecuted the scientists for not predicting the 2009 L’Aquila earthquake.

April 11, 2016 9:35 am

20 years worth of e-mails in 30 days????
That alone is an abuse of power.

Craig Loehle
April 12, 2016 8:21 am

A gross misuse of the term “fraud”. If related to Exxon stock filings, it can only be with respect to notifying stockholders of regulatory risk, which they already do. If the claim is that Exxon products change the climate, then so does every product out there. Energy is used to make everything. No, in fact the AGs don’t like Exxon engaging in political activism–but in fact Exxon gives money for basic research, supports alternative energy and has not said climate change is a myth, as far as I know, and if they did it would not be illegal.