Attack on Free Speech: CEI Subpoenaed over Global Warming Skepticism

CEI-logo

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.

Source: https://cei.org/content/cei-fights-subpoena-silence-debate-climate-change

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: http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-04-08/subpoenaed-into-silence-on-global-warming

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

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

258 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Amatør1
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.

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.

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

Lawfare

londo
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.

jorgekafkazar
April 9, 2016 2:14 am

Fascism, plain and simple–always lurking within Socialism.

Dave
April 9, 2016 2:28 am

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

Zenreverend
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)

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.

Barbara
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

Hans,
I thought that was Voltaire.

Patrick
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.

Zenreverend
Reply to  mkelly
April 9, 2016 7:14 am

+1

Sleepalot
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”.

Sleepalot
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

rishrac
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

rishrac
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.

sigmundb
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 !

TonyN
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

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.

AlexS
April 9, 2016 4:08 am

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

mikewaite
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: http://realclimatescience.com/2016/03/noaa-radiosonde-data-shows-no-warming-for-58-years/
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: http://scottishsceptic.co.uk/2016/04/05/the-58-year-old-pause/

ozspeaksup
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

Hlaford
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

Moderators,
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.

Verified by MonsterInsights