BREAKING: CEI Defeats RICO-20 Ringleader Shukla In FOIA Lawsuit – Emails to be are made public

Jagadish Shukla, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA Edward Maibach, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA Paul Dirmeyer, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA Barry Klinger, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA Paul Schopf, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA David Straus, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA Edward Sarachik, University of Washington, Seattle, WA Michael Wallace, University of Washington, Seattle, WA Alan Robock, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ Eugenia Kalnay, University of Maryland, College Park, MD William Lau, University of Maryland, College Park, MD Kevin Trenberth, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO T.N. Krishnamurti, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL Vasu Misra, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL Ben Kirtman, University of Miami, Miami, FL Robert Dickinson, University of Texas, Austin, TX Michela Biasutti, Earth Institute, Columbia University, New York, NY Mark Cane, Columbia University, New York, NY Lisa Goddard, Earth Institute, Columbia University, New York, NY Alan Betts, Atmospheric Research, Pittsford, VT

In the photo above supplied by George Mason University, 14 of the 20 signatories of the letter are shown. Some, such as Kevin Trenberth, could not be present due to distance and travel issues.Jagadish Shukla(front, center), George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, Edward Maibach, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, Paul Dirmeyer, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, Barry Klinger, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, Paul Schopf, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, David Straus, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, Edward Sarachik, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, Michael Wallace, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, Alan Robock, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, Eugenia Kalnay, University of Maryland, College Park, MD
William Lau, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, Kevin Trenberth, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO, T.N. Krishnamurti, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, Vasu Misra, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL
Ben Kirtman, University of Miami, Miami, FL, Robert Dickinson, University of Texas, Austin, TX, Michela Biasutti, Earth Institute, Columbia University, New York, NY
Mark Cane, Columbia University, New York, NY, Lisa Goddard, Earth Institute, Columbia University, New York, NY, Alan Betts, Atmospheric Research, Pittsford, VT

 

From CEI’s web page:

CEI Defeats RICO-20 Ringleader In FOIA Lawsuit

George Mason University Must Release Documents Calling for Prosecution of Political Opponents

The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) prevailed in a Virginia Freedom of Information Act (VFOIA) lawsuit against George Mason University (GMU). The VFOIA request sought public records showing how the “RICO-20” group of academics, using public funding, organized their call for a federal racketeering investigation of “corporations and other entities” who disagreed with them on climate policy.

The judge ruled for CEI on all counts in an April 22 ruling in Christopher Horner and CEI v. George Mason University that the court released today. The ruling concluded that by leaving it to faculty who simply told the school’s FOIA officer they had no responsive records, GMU failed to conduct an adequate search; the judge also ruled that documents including emails from GMU Professor Ed Maibach must be released to CEI.

“This victory puts on notice those academics who have increasingly inserted themselves into politics, that they cannot use taxpayer-funded positions to go after those who disagree with them and expect to hide it,” said Chris Horner, CEI fellow and co-plaintiff. “These records are highly relevant to the state attorneys general campaign that these academics hoped for, and will be of great assistance to the public in trying to understand how their tax dollars are being used for political fights.”

In 2015, George Mason University (GMU) faculty claimed “no records” existed in response to CEI  VFOIA request for records regarding Professor Ed Maibach’s role as a ringleader of the RICO-20 campaign.  Other universities provided proof that the “no records” claim was not true, which prompted CEI to sue GMU over the FOIA dispute.

The RICO-20, including six GMU faculty, wrote a September 1 letter from 20 climate scientists to President Barack Obama, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and White House science adviser John Holdren requesting a RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) investigation of “the fossil fuel industry and their supporters.” The scientists allege that the aforementioned interests “knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, in order to forestall America’s response to climate change.” CEI’s FOIA efforts extend to each public university represented in the letter. GMU is not the only school to falsely claim “no records” existed.

In May 2015, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) called for a RICO investigation of “fossil fuel companies and their allies.” The academics “strongly endorse” Sen. Whitehouse’s proposal.  Documents provided by two universities suggest the RICO-20 recruited this support, not for any legislation, but for his call to prosecute political opponents, in consultation with Sen. Whitehouse.

In April, 2016, CEI was subpoenaed by the Attorney General of the U.S. Virgin Islands for a decade’s worth of climate policy related work. CEI is vigorously fighting the subpoena, which is an attack on its First Amendment rights.


Here is the order denying their appeal to the April 22nd decision:

stay-GMU

The full court document: GMU-FOIA-Orders (PDF)

There’s quite a backstory to this, which we’ll cover later. -Anthony

UPDATE: Some emails are released in this document, they make for interesting reading: http://eelegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/img20160205_17361082.pdf

UPDATE2:

From EELegal

For Immediate Release:
May 13, 2016

Virginia Circuit Court Dissolves Protective Order on GMU Professor’s E-mail;
National Campaign led by AG’s to Use RICO Against ‘Climate Skeptics’ will be Revealed in Released E-mails

Washington, D.C. – Today the public came one big step closer to learning the truth behind how university professors launched “a national campaign” to have state attorneys general investigate and prosecute political opponents under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) — investigations which have now swept up think tanks and climate scientists who have dared challenge the climate agenda and claims made to force it into place.

Representing Christopher Horner and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, attorneys from the Free Market Environmental Law Clinic successfully argued that the public records of Professor Edward Maibach should now be disclosed to all, having previously been submitted to the court under a protective order. Having reviewed these emails under seal, we were aware of their connection and importance to the ongoing and expanding abuses by state AGs to use law enforcement powers to go after opponents.

On April 22, the Richmond (VA) Circuit Court held that the emails were public records, that they are not protected by any exemption and thus must be disclosed. Because they were being held secret under a protective order, and in light of the Court’s decision, today FME Law asked the court to dissolve the protective order and allow the records to be made public. The Virginia Assistant Attorney General, representing George Mason University, asked the protective order remain in place and that the ruling be stayed while it appealed the underlying decision to the Supreme Court. After extensive oral argument, the Court concluded that the appeal would most likely fail and thus it dissolved the protective order, allowing the public to view records about a disgraceful campaign that the public paid for.

Director of the FME Law Clinic, David W. Schnare, commented, “We need to protect the work of academics as set forth in Freedom of Information Acts, which laws make exception for information that should be legitimately protected, for example relating to research. But when professors voluntarily enter the policy arena, particularly in this case when they use their positions specifically to advance a political agenda, they are no different than any other government employee and the law treats them accordingly.”

FME Law, the Energy & Environment Legal Institute, and others should now look forward to publicly discussing what this information reveals about the ongoing campaign by text pair funded academics, lawn force meant officials, and major political party donors to use the offices of attorney general to prosecute and silence political opponents.

A total of 5 PDFs, 190 pages

Pages 1- 59
Pages 60-102
Pages 103-133
Pages 134-178
Pages 179-190

Here’s one:

shukla-retract

Here’s another showing how they planned to use tobacco lawsuit tactics:

maibach-tobacco

Here is the genesis of the whole affair. Shukla can’t believe the public remains mostly skeptical, therefore it must be a big oil conspiracy. Some scientist, op-eds replace factual research for him:

shukla-genesis-rico20

Here’s Shukla’s response to a tobacco lawyer meeting, seems his first effort into political lobbying turned into a disaster, as we see now:

maibach-tobacco2 shukla-amateur-political

“Don’t turn climate into God.”:

climate-to-god

LOL! Union of Concerned Scientists bows out of climate circus they propose, doesn’t think it is a good idea to get involved:

UCUSA-response-maibach

Here’s the worst part – they knowingly tried to circumvent future FOIA requests:

private-email-addresses

Advertisements

454 thoughts on “BREAKING: CEI Defeats RICO-20 Ringleader Shukla In FOIA Lawsuit – Emails to be are made public

  1. Next up is John Holdren, the high ranking useful idiot with the FOIA-fighting apparatus backing him.

    • On Monday CEI was granted discovery (that means sworn depositions, (meaning perjury is at stake) in the Holdren global warming causes cooling 2 minute White House video Holdren made and then claimed was unofficial to avoid the ‘truthful support law’ inquiry by CEI. The judge found the White House acted in bad faith in attempting to dodge FOI regarding same by first saying there were no docs, and then trying claim exec priviledge when CEI produced some.

  2. CEI should countersue under the Ku Klux Klan Act Shukla et al for attempting to deny them their civil rights. Go after the VI Attorney General, too.

    • 18USC241 is criminal, and is initiated by a US attorney. Unlikely.
      Civil liability under 42USC1985 means CEI can sue directly for large sums.

      • But for an offense not resulting in death the statute of limitations on 18USC241 is 7 years. I believe the clock starts to run with discovery, not with the actual offense, so these guys are far from off the hook for criminal conspiracy. At the very least an unsympathetic AG could scare the crap out of them, turnabout is fair play…

      • https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1985

        42 U.S. Code § 1985 – Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights

        (1) Preventing officer from performing duties

        If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging any duties thereof; or to induce by like means any officer of the United States to leave any State, district, or place, where his duties as an officer are required to be performed, or to injure him in his person or property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his office, or while engaged in the lawful discharge thereof, or to injure his property so as to molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his official duties;

        (2) Obstructing justice; intimidating party, witness, or juror

        If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to deter, by force, intimidation, or threat, any party or witness in any court of the United States from attending such court, or from testifying to any matter pending therein, freely, fully, and truthfully, or to injure such party or witness in his person or property on account of his having so attended or testified, or to influence the verdict, presentment, or indictment of any grand or petit juror in any such court, or to injure such juror in his person or property on account of any verdict, presentment, or indictment lawfully assented to by him, or of his being or having been such juror; or if two or more persons conspire for the purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating, in any manner, the due course of justice in any State or Territory, with intent to deny to any citizen the equal protection of the laws, or to injure him or his property for lawfully enforcing, or attempting to enforce, the right of any person, or class of persons, to the equal protection of the laws;

        (3) Depriving persons of rights or privileges

        If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State or Territory from giving or securing to all persons within such State or Territory the equal protection of the laws; or if two or more persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified person as an elector for President or Vice President, or as a Member of Congress of the United States; or to injure any citizen in person or property on account of such support or advocacy; in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators.

        (R.S. § 1980.)

      • [Moderator, please delete my longer post here on this subject, which is not displayed yet and may have gone into the ether. Thank you.]

        https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1985

        42 U.S. Code § 1985 – Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights

        (3) Depriving persons of rights or privileges

        If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State or Territory from giving or securing to all persons within such State or Territory the equal protection of the laws; or if two or more persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified person as an elector for President or Vice President, or as a Member of Congress of the United States; or to injure any citizen in person or property on account of such support or advocacy; in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators.

        (R.S. § 1980.)

    • I don’t know if this has been covered, but it is a felony for any government official to act to deprive your rights by falsely claiming you are doing something criminal. 18 USC para 242 “Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law”

      • I thought the same in an earlier post however, someone properly pointed out that 18 USC 242 only applies “on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race,”

        So, this statute would not apply.

      • Not by my reading. There are two clauses, separated by an ‘or’
        https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/242

        “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”

  3. should get his views on Eugenics and population control on the record. Holdren is a Pseudoscience
    advocate that should have been castrated during his studying years.

      • I recall when Ehrlich came to speak at my college in the late 70’s, about the coming new Ice Age and how we were all going to starve. I stepped up to the microphone and said it all sounded like an excuse for government control of everything, and his answer was like, “Yeah, what’s your point?”

      • Obama relies on the likes of Al Sharpton for his “civil rights” expertise, which is so far off the mark as to be completely embarrassing, so it’s just a bunch of clowns advising a bunch of political hacks at top levels.

        I’m surprised the Russians haven’t marched in and taken over.

  4. The RICO law was designed to extend penalties for an illegal enterprise (money laundering, murder for hire, etc.). Until emitting CO2 becomes illegal, how could RICO apply? Every living thing on this planet would be guilty. Even if the oil companies own research showed CO2 causes warming, even “dangerous” warming, RICO could not apply. Someone correct me otherwise.

    • The sale of cigarettes were/are a legal enterprise last time I looked. Conspiracy to hide the danger was the key to the tobacco RiCO case.

      • Conspiracy to hide the danger was the key to the tobacco RiCO case.

        HA, then the CO2 RiCO (threatened) case will be a “winner” for the wacko warminists ….. simply because there is no scientifically factual evidence that supports or proves the “junk science” claims of the dangers to the human populace being caused by cigarette smoke and/or atmospheric CO2 increases.

        Juries consisting of “junk-science” nurtured, liberally biased “brainwashed” individuals will always “find-in-favor-of” ….. their like-minded mentor(s) when said mentor(s) is party to a law suit.

      • Conspiracy to hide the danger was the key to the tobacco RiCO case.

        HA, then the CO2 RiCO (threatened) case will be a “winner” for the wacko warminists ….. simply because there is no scientifically factual evidence that supports or proves the “junk science” claims of the dangers to human populace that is being caused by cigarette smoke and/or atmospheric CO increases.

        Juries consisting of “junk-science” nurtured, liberally biased “brainwashed” individuals will always “find-in-favor-of” ….. their like-minded mentor(s) when said mentor(s) is party to a law suit.

    • The sale of cigarettes were/are a legal enterprise. What was proved was a conspiracy to hide the danger using RICO.

      • In the case of CAGW, there is no danger to hide. CAGW is not happening. The defendants are being attacked for not believing in fairy tales.

      • The following was excerpted from a now defunct ACS published Internet commentary, to wit:

        The American Cancer Society‘s first national Great American Smokeout was held in 1977.

        During the next 25 years the Smokeout was celebrated with rallies, parades, stunts, quitting information, and even “cold turkey” menu items in schools, workplaces, Main Streets, and legislative halls throughout the US.

        The Great American Smokeout has helped to spotlight the dangers of tobacco use and the challenges of quitting, but more importantly, it has set the stage for the cultural revolution in tobacco control that has occurred over this period.

        So “Yes”, the tobacco control “cultural revolution” was a resounding success because the children were forcibly “brainwashed” and the populace believed the fear mongering “junk science” claims without benefit of any scientific evidence to support or prove their beliefs.

        And CAGW is simply a “repeat” of the appropriate fear mongering “junk science” claims that the children are forcibly “brainwashed” into believing and which are required to benefit a cultural revolution in fossil fuel usage control …….. without benefit of any scientific evidence to support or prove their beliefs.

        If you “brainwashed” the minds of the children ……. you will soon have total control of the minds of the populace.

    • Duncan, This is what opened the door to this abomination. One might naively think that we’d already know better based on historical precedents, yet we learn but slowly and reluctantly from history and forget what we ought to have learned in the blink of an eye.

      • As an instance of forgetting what we ought to have learned, I submit as Exhibit A a point made by Michael Crichton in his 2004 novel called “State of Fear”.

        Crichton pointed out in that book that the Global Warming mania arrived hot on the heels of the Big Tobacco trials in the mid 1990s. The Legal Bar consequently made the instantaneous connection that Global Warming was going to be the Next Big Thing: a highly profitable way to go after Big Oil.

        That was almost 20 years ago, and STILL there have been no public trials with Alarmists and Skeptics pitted against one another in the court room. Crichton’s point in 2004 was that as soon as the Alarmist lawyers began to seriously examine the case for/against, their enthusiasm for a high profile suit against Big Oil dribbled away to nothing, and so it remains today.

        Mark Steyn has been ferociously eager to come to grips with the Big Climate enforcers, yet they are now using all the tricks they have to delay/prevent an actual trial.

        Here is my prediction. There will continue to be much sound and fury from the left, just as there has been for the past 20 years. However, the Alarmists will continue to refuse to enter a courtroom where there are well informed expert witnesses on both sides of this debate.

        It is difficult to escape the conclusion that the Alarmist position cannot withstand well prepared opponents faced on equal terms.

      • @ markbofill, 11:08 pm, you wrote, “One might naively think that we’d already know better based on historical precedents, yet we learn but slowly and reluctantly from history and forget what we ought to have learned in the blink of an eye.”

        Looking at history I doubt we even “slowly and reluctantly” learn anything, this is a case in point. You’d think that these so called “educated” people would know better but hey they went to Uni’s in the 70’s so I wonder what kind of long term effect the damage from dope has after all.

      • Doing the same things that one has done before, and expecting a different result, is a definition of insanity.

        Doing the same things that others have done before, and expecting a different result, is a definition of hubris.

    • I already contemplated the “smoking” precedent and I cannot draw any correlations. Forest fires produce CO2 (non-toxic) and other toxins like Carbon Monoxide above 35ppm. If people ‘packaged’ and sold “forest fires” saying they are healthy alternatives to breathing normal air, I can see the precedent for RICO. Oil companies sell gasoline which are already covered by MSDS sheets explaining toxicity, flammability, by-products, safe handling instructions, etc. People exhale CO2, if believing CO2 causes climate change is then ever person subject to Racketeering charges for continuing with this criminal behavior? Maybe this is where the ‘greens’ are going with this whole argument.

      • “People exhale CO2, if believing CO2 causes climate change is then ever person subject to Racketeering charges for continuing with this criminal behavior? ”

        Everyone BUT them yes. Because they only exhale perfectly green and beneficial CO2 while the rest of us common folk exhale the “dirty” kind.

        In all seriousness–you are looking for logic where there is none. If you told a greenie to hold their breath to keep from killing the planet they won’t know what the hell you are talking about. Because it isn’t about the CO2, it’s about the “dirty oil industry”. It’s not even about “clean” energy either because nuclear and hydroelectric are completely ignored. There is no logic in their arguments because it has become a religion (or reverted back to one) where man is inherently evil, man is a plague upon the Earth and man is solely responsible–and accountable–for everything (from the sun rising to the moon phases).

      • Duncan, the EPA has determined that rising levels of CO2 produced dangerous climate change and that C02 can be regulated to avoid these dangers. The Fossil Fuel industry is knowingly misleading the public that buying and using Fossil Fuel is safe, when they know that rising levels of CO2 is a danger to the whole world. Why can you not see the how this is the same as the tobacco industry misleading the public about the safety of cigarettes? Except with Fossil Fuels it is much more serious because the entire world is threatened by rising CO2 and climate change. It is the knowingly misleading the public in order to sell their products that makes this an obvious RICO offense.

      • Well, maybe for the sun rising too early, and “that time of the month”, but let’s keep it real, Jenn ; )

      • Dan, are you saying that as soon as the EPA (a political organization) determines a conclusion, no one is allowed to challenge that? To do so is a crime? What about the market place of ideas? The EPA can present their case and implement rules and regulations at the same time as their target makes their case that the EPA is mistaken. We the citizens can then vote for who should be the new chief executive to appoint the head of the EPA

      • Dan, I understand your side of the argument, it’s very targeted that is the problem. As example, the US military embraces climate action yet continue to burn copious amounts of fossil fuels, depleted uranium rounds, etc. Knowing they are a danger to the whole world, should they not stop doing this? Do they get a free pass just because they know?
        My point, even if the fossil fuel industry knows CO2 is dangerous, how does this single them out? Just because McDonald’s knows high fat diets are bad for the human body, should they be RICO’ed too. They even advertise to kids, one of the standards used against the tobacco companies. It’s a misappropriation of the law IMO. Politicly savy, I give them that.

      • @John Knight;

        LOL. Why? They certainly aren’t. Ok, Ok, I’ll keep it out of the sandbox and try to remember to not throw sand when they do. :)

      • Duncan, RICO absolutely would apply to McDonalds if they knowingly mislead the public about what is in their food or tried to make some sort of health claim about their food. I am sure they very carefully avoid that type of deception and make calorie and food content lists available to customers. It is the fraud/deception that would be the key to a RICO violation.

        blcartwright, I mention the EPA findings because that would be used to prosecute the RICO charge and determine whether a judge (also a political entity) considers there enough evidence to allow a RICO accusation to proceed to trial. It would of course be up to a jury to determine the truth. I am sure there is no juror out there who would decide that the EPA findings are true and that the Fossil Fuel companies were not 100% honest. By the way, I am totally in favor of you fighting the EPA and trying to make lots of money by telling people that EPA findings are wrong.

      • “As example, the US military embraces climate action yet continue to burn copious amounts of fossil fuels, depleted uranium rounds, etc. Knowing they are a danger to the whole world, should they not stop doing this?” Huhhh??? Please provide links to documentation indicating that the military “embraces” [willingly, gladly, etc.] climate action.

        1. The Military analyzes the effects of climate change as part of their need to have a strategy for combating/mitigating potential problems in the future regardless of their probability when there exists a potential that it is possible. Its’called “Being Prepared.” Does the fact that you have discussed what to do in case of a fire with your family imply that you “embrace” your house burning down?
        2. The Obama administration has Directed the military, and all other government agencies, departments, commissions, etc. etc. to reduce their energy usage through efficiency, insulation and Architectural design measures, AND, by obtaining 20% of their electricity from “Renewable Energy.” Does the fact that the military spends 10% plus on burocratic mandates that give them 1 cent on the dollar return imply that they “embrace” renewable energy?
        3. A common misconception is that radiation is depleted uranium’s primary hazard. It is used in just about all of the record setting racing sailing yachts, and many others. Depleted uranium is approximately 40 percent less radioactive than natural uranium. It can be handled in your unprotected hands. The many parks and national monuments in western USA have high levels of natural uranium, same in Austrilia. Not high enough to “mine” but right there on the surface giving you a dose higher than allowed by the NRC for any Radiation Worker, in many areas. Are you going to quit visiting them and notify the public of your ignorance at the same time? The oceans contain natural uranium and depleted uranium. The soil in your backyard contains uranium for mor info – http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/dod/du_factsheet_4aug98.htm

      • Dan, we are arguing semantics. Mcdonald’s advertising “health food” as being perceived more healthy. RICO them. One of new kale salads has more calories, fat and sodium than a Double Big Mac.
        http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/mcdonalds-kale-calorie-questions-1.3423938

        Mr Brain. “embraces” might have been an overstatement considering the current political climate but I am sure the extra funding does not hurt. “It says the military will not be able to maintain effectiveness unless the directive is followed. It orders the establishment of a new layer of bureaucracy — a wide array of “climate change boards, councils and working groups” to infuse climate change into “programs, plans and policies.””
        http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/7/pentagon-orders-commanders-to-prioritize-climate-c/?page=all

      • Dan, to add (as I steal your tin-foil hat) combined prescription drugs, alcohol and poor food choices combine to kill tens ( if not hundreds of) thousands of people every year. Yet these industries do not get RICO’ed? They are aware of their products being killers, world wide, yet they go on? I’ll finish, this is a chess move for political gain, nothing more. To argue anything else shows your true political stripes.

      • Duncan May 13, 2016 at 2:51 pm

        . As example, the US military embraces climate action yet continue to burn copious amounts of fossil fuels, depleted uranium rounds,

        Dan What are you babbling about? The only thing the US embraces is blasting people who threaten the safety of the United States off the face of the earth. The only Climate action the military embraces is turning perfectly good farm, pasture or city land into moonscape. Get will the program, It the administration that “embraces” climate delusion. The administration then orders the military to act silly mush like Caligula and his orders to have the Legions attack the sea and gather sea shells as booty.
        michael

      • @ Duncan “but I am sure the extra funding does not hurt. ” What country do you live in? Have you not heard that the military is thread bare, repairing equipment by taking parts off of Reserve and NG equipment? The Graveyard of older aircraft has been stripped to skeletons and scrap aluminium. And the dollars are spent on Renewable Energy rather than their operating/training funds requirements. Where is the Extra Funding coming from?
        I retired from the local electric utility. The utility has a contract to provide the local AFB with electricity at 3 cents per kWh, meanwhile, the AFB is forced to buy all available Wind energy from a government contracted wind farm [built at DOD expense] at a great price of 25 cents per kWh. Workers from other companies have told me similar stories. Worse yet, there are non government contract wind farms willing to sell for 5 cents per kWh so that they qualify for government subsidies. And you think the military embraces that extra expenditure?
        You need to visit some web sites other than the AGW Cult Choir.

      • Mr Brain. I think you are barking up the wrong tree. I live in Canada, I love the USA besides some minor differences. Everyone wants hates USA until they need the USA. Everyone else can pound sand.
        Unfortunate, all this “extra funding” will not get to YOU on the front lines. It’s the $500 toilet seat fiasco again. Your military climate commandos will be eating caviar.

      • @Duncan ‘ wide array of “climate change boards, councils and working groups” to infuse climate change into “programs, plans and policies.” Search, find, download, and read that drivel. Paragraphs, sections are word for word from the “UN Agenda 21” Sustainability diatribe. The document that the left says does not exist, that the USA has not agreed to, some eve mock those that claim the USA is doing it. Seems strange that the counties newest building code has whole sections that are also word for word from UN documents. So, why do military programs mimic UN documents that the USA has not committed to? [Also retired military and have seen them.]
        Can you imagine what it is going to be like when the USA is governed just like the UN. Hope all liberals live long enough to suffer under what they precipitated.

      • Duncan, I absolutely agree with you “this is a chess move for political gain, nothing more.” You were just wondering how this compared with the cigarette RICO suit and I was explaining how it compares and the justification of those bringing the charge. I think it is unconscionable that they are trying to bring a RICO suit to “climate deniers”. I sincerely hope and pray that it backfires on them.

        Scientific “certainty” is abused, flogged, twisted, undermined, pummeled, and tortured everyday in our courtrooms. I believe it is a major cause of most cases of injustice in America. Scientific “certainty” is almost always overstated and jurors almost always accept any scientific evidence.

      • There was far more behind the smoking RICO action than “just smoking tobacco”

        The tobacco executives were claiming that they never saw/read/heard evidence against smoking
        The tobacco companies did go on mis-information campaigns. They also actively sought to discredit people and scientists against tobacco.

        Then the court cases shook loose letters, presentations and discussions.

        Turns out the tobacco executives received research notices regarding nicotine, tobacco tars, cancer rates, exposures, etc.
        — The tobacco executives not only knew nicotine was extremely addictive, but they also adjusted nicotine levels in their products to ensure solid addictions.
        — The tobacco executives initiated and operated the tobacco industry’s official program that insisted there were no connections between smoking and cancer.
        — Tobacco executives were implicated in campaigns to discredit, demonize scientists and where possible damage their careers.

        These, extremely simply stated, were/are the main case points leading to RICO charges against the tobacco industry.

        Or do the alarmists plan to prove skeptics caused plants and living creatures to be addicted to carbon monoxide?

        Meanwhile; the alarmists engage in campaigns to damage careers and employment circumstances to any persons of contrary thought.
        — The alarmists want to incarcerate people and scientists just for being skeptical.
        — The alarmists are the ones who refuse discussion or to properly share research and data.

      • Duncan May 13, 2016 at 5:14 pm
        $500 toilet seat fiasco again.

        You, need to look a bit deeper. Yes the over expensive ashtrays, the 700 dollar hammers. If you built a mullti million dollar submarine you don’t want it compromised because someone knocked a ashtray off a table.
        The quality control is much higher on parts machined for military vs civilian. 1-10 % inspection vs 100%.
        And yes Duncan I know this because I was a machinist-Toolmaker in both areas. Every part I ever made for aerospace has a paper trail with my name on it. When you need a battery to work it MUST work. Not 90% of the time not 99% not 99.999 but 100%. For want of a nail a shoe was lost, for want of a shoe a rider was lost….

        michael

      • Mike,

        I live quality control day to day as a Engineer/Project Manager (ASME Code, Nuclear, Gas, etc.). For example, calibration certificates cost more than the gauge itself, the gauge is already calibrated from the factory, but the “paper” (photo copy) is more. Justify how you want, $700 hammers, hey, I need a pay check too.
        While my projects are around 500-700 thousand, no nuclear sub by all means, I see the waste.
        Funny how Toyota has figured out how to make an ashtray for a few $$ and it’s bumping around a lot more than a sub. Who is smoking on a sub nowadays anyways, all that CO2 and whatever. Still need to install those ash trays though at $700 a piece.
        Back in WII, they could build a ship one a day in the USA. Today, they are built in Korea.

      • If Exxon have scientific proof AGW is a valid hypothesis that would be something.

        I seriously doubt anyone Exxon hired has that kind of experience and knowledge. The science hasn’t even been born yet, it’s just models and a lot of wild guess figures thrown around and lent authority because it is an extremely weak argument.

        As Steyn says, the idea is so weak it cannot even bear public debate

      • Duncan May 13, 2016 at 6:06 pm
        Again only civilian experience.
        amateur hour.
        Did you get finger printed? Did you sign a sabotage clause? I did. There is a place,its called Leavenworth.
        did the stuff you did never did to spic lead you to such a place if you blew off your responsibility?
        Me my Dad flew in the birds, I turned people in, yes I was a rat. Surprise. We are not in the same league
        Next self serving ill informed unresearched assumption please.

        michael

      • Duncan:
        The more you comment, the greater the confusion you leave.

        “…Back in WII, they could build a ship one a day in the USA. Today, they are built in Korea.”

        Well, that’s a new one on me. Just what ships did they build in a day?

        And the shipyards in various American ports are still building frontline ships today. You might find some foreign boats or inflatables used b the services; you won’t find any ships.

        “…quality control day to day as a Engineer/Project Manager (ASME Code, Nuclear, Gas, etc.). For example, calibration certificates cost more than the gauge itself, the gauge is already calibrated from the factory…”

        You’re a QE and you’re bitching about certification documents?
        Gauges are set to calibration standards at the factory.
        Expensive gauges are even individually calibrated at the factory. Inexpensive gauges might have a few per hundred tested.

        Then the gauges are sent to the purchaser; located elsewhere. Different altitude, different weather systems, different work environment,…

        Some engineer, certified, tests the gauge, adjusts if necessary and certifies the accuracy and limits of the gauge.
        Cost to certify:
        Receipt of gauge.
        Scheduling of gauge certification
        Certified and qualified engineer disassembles and certifies the gauge.
        Engineer records all adjustments, accuracy and certification limits.
        Copy of certificate and gauge are processed through billing and shipping.

        I suppose you want all of this to be free?

        Whine about the costs all you want. You want precise and accurate, you’ll pay the price.

        If you want whatever the gauge might happen to say; you have no right to claim quality standards then.

        Once upon a time, my Father bought a broken grocer scale at an auction. During the summers we kids worked the crops and for local farmers plus we sold what was ripe off the front porch.
        One year when the tomato crops came in well over estimates and we were feeding even slightly overripe tomatoes to the pigs, it got so the pigs were less than happy at tomatoes in their trough.
        We switched out the working grocer scale for the broken one.
        Neighbor tomato sellers would squawk and get angry with us if we went too far off rational price scale, so we played dumb with a broken scale.

        People would buy a shopping bag full of tomatoes that the scale would read at three pounds.
        We’d watch their faces and it was amazing to us just how many people got so excited to cheat the dumb farmer kids.
        Maybe one or two people in a hundred would try to alert us to the broken scale.

        But we got rid of an incredible amount of extra tomatoes. We also noticed that few of the folks most gleeful with their unpaid for tomatoes, rarely returned; and those that did, avoided eye contact.

        That was also the summer that our processing tomato sauce steamed the wall paper off the wall in the kitchen. We also fed a lot of excess cayenne peppers to the pigs which definitely did not like cayenne peppers.

        I shop the surplus government auctions every chance I get. Most of the equipment is far superior to anything I find locally.
        My last purchase was a box of various nuts and bolts. 4140 steel bolts, grade 8 and 5 nuts, titanium rivets…

        I separated out what I could use and sold the rest; grade 8 nuts are worth quite a bit. The government sold a mess to me and I spent a few days sorting and cleaning. They got cash for the mess and I received cash for sorted quality material.
        Auctions with those $700 hammers and expensive coffee pots sell for far more than I can afford. The government doesn’t really lose that much money.

        Reply: The record was set by [The Liberty Ship] SS Robert E. Peary, which was launched 4 days and 15½ hours after the keel was laid…~ctm, the one reply wonder, now heading back underground after this brief guest appearance. ciao!

      • ATheoK

        “Well, that’s a new one on me. Just what ships did they build in a day?”

        Liberty ships were launched at a rate of one per day. They were made in a vast yard that had a sort of assembly line organisation but the keel remained in one place.

        One of the main organisers of this extraordinary feat was a stumpy Canadian with whom I shared a design office when I worked for IMAX in Mississauga. He told me in detail how the achievement of launching a ship per day was done. In his dotage he was developing solid state power control circuitry for industrial applications when the rest of us were looking to upgrade our slide rules.

      • Why can you not see the how this is the same as the tobacco industry misleading the public about the safety of cigarettes?
        =========================
        because you have to prove damages. that is the key point. you have to show that CO2 has caused actual damages, like people dying of lung cancer and the government having to pick up the bills.

        go ahead, sue the oil companies. and if you win and cannot prove that there has been harm, the courts will say. yep, you won, and the oil companies owe you nothing.

        because without actual harm there is no case for damages. what actual harm has CO2 done you? be specific. How much are you out of pocket?

  5. One of the reasons these scientists got themselves into this mess is that they believe the tobacco-funding memes of the leftist organizations they follow.

    • You see this political manipulation clearly, yet you keep your head from sticking out of the parapit, leaving others to take the brunt. Calling it as I see it.

      • Dr. Spencer has accumulated more than his share of slings and arrows because he had the colossal temerity to tell the truth. He makes most of the rest of us look like mere guttersnipes.

      • Like it or not, if someone moves slightly into the realm or discussion of the “political manipulation” (even by just pointing it out, and even if they are 100% correct), they will lose the some respect. That’s just the way it is.

        Those that stay above the fray most of the time can create a bigger impact when they do choose to get close to it.

      • First of all it is a parapet, not a “parapit”.
        Second, you say you are calling it as you see it, yet I have no idea what you see.
        Care to elucidate it for me ?

      • David, i reject your premise… Anyone who engages in activism should do so as he or she sees fit. I read a comment recently on an open thread here at wuwt. It went something like, “i’m not here to fight, i’m here to win.” THAT is what it’s all about; every activist has to dig down deep within to find the way to win. Whatever strategy the activist uses must have that one goal in mind, WINNING! And it’s not always going to look like what people on the outside think it should look like…

      • Nonsense did Roy not quit NASA over this nonsense.

        he has gone on the media to debate Schmidt, who chickened out,

        If you are thinking a scientist should get all political, you are a numpty, because that is the bloody problem.

      • One informed vote in favour of Roy Spencer.

        “In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”
        – George Orwell

    • Sophistry + rhetoric + government funding + magic computers + ignorant media hungry for compelling stories = $$$

    • David Ball, May 13, 2016 at 1:48 pm wrote: “It is not about you.”

      Cheap shot, David.

      Roy Spencer, May 13, 2016 at 11:02 am wrote: “One of the reasons these scientists got themselves into this mess is that they believe the tobacco-funding memes of the leftist organizations they follow.”

      I don’t see how these scientists got themselves into any mess, no matter what they believed or how they were brainwashed by one side or the other.

      The bottom line is CAGW is an unproven theory, and it does not make one guilty of anything, if you don’t believe in the theory’s validity, or if you say the theory has not been proven. All you are doing is telling the truth. Telling the truth should not be a criminal offense.

  6. This actually all started two years ago at Scripps in LaJolla in a two day activist brainstorm session attended by the likes of Naomi Klein and Naomi Oreskes. Its modeled on Merchants of Doubt and the tobacco analog. Problem for warmunists is, the analogy utterly fails. Easy to prove smoking/lung cancer connection. First done in UK in 1954. Very difficult to prove CAGW now. There hasn’t been any. Temperature not rising this century except 2015 El Nino blip. No acceleration of SLR. Greening. Snow.

    • it’s not difficult, it is impossible to prove AGW because there is no human CO2 signal.

      it’s a load of science and some pseudo science all based on several assumptions, some of which have been shown to be actual bunk, which is why they are still staying well away from attribution in discussion because any discussion will reveal they have no idea.

    • The Germans made the link in the 1930’s. They banned smoking in the underground and in public offices. But, they were the Nazi’s, so, they had to be wrong. The USA, fighting for freedom, promoted tobacco use. Right up to the Clinton administration.

      • They were called ‘cancer sticks’ when I was a kid in the 60’s. We have brains. We don’t fall in line just because the cigarette companies OR the government tells us something is one way or the other.

      • I started smoking in 1963 in college and quit in 2003. At no time did I ever think smoking was good for you. The description of cigarettes as “coffin nails” go back to early 20th century. Likewise the government did not promote smoking even though the cigarette companies did. People did it anyway because they enjoyed smoking.

    • Fully agree. And sue the AG’s in their personal rather than official capacities on grounds of abuse of prosecutorial discretion, which 27 other state AG’s have already said is the case.

      • Agreed. There is no way they should be able to hide behind their “official” capacities when the rightful punishment for their stupid witch hunt comes around.

  7. Even the IPCC agrees that mild warming is beneficial. It is only warming over 1.8C or so that begins to get harmful, and we HAVE NOT YET reached that point.

    So all that can be said is the Oil Companies conspired to bring us a net benefit.

    • We also do not KNOW that +1.8C “begins to get harmful”, though IPCC believes that to be the case.

      • I agree. I was just making the case that the evidence shows that there is a net benefit from current warming. Which is pretty obvious when you compare living in countries the emit lots of CO2 as compared to those that do not.

    • ferd berple, still, ipcc conjecture is just that, conjecture. What the ipcc says is based on shoddy science (by any strech of the imagination), so even their conjecture should have no weight in a court of law…

      • And yet billions have been wasted, policy is being formulated around just that very thing.

  8. Reading the documents, Maibach is a propaganda PR type. Social marketing. Climate change communications.. Isn’t Cook a climate change communications fellow, UOQ have created entirely new profession for this idiot for the lies he passed off as research.

    Maibach is a fan of using the mass media to change people’s behaviors.

    If only this got him fired, he deserves to be fired or at least like Gleick, pushed into the background because he is damaged goods.

  9. Turn over a new-fangled climate-sciencey rock and this is what happens. Then the fleas start a hoppin’ …

  10. In saying that they had no responsive records in response to the FOI request, and now the demonstration that they did indeed have them, did they not engage in obstruction of justice and/or contempt of court?

    • They lied. But not just lying got them into hot water. They denied that they lied until a judge made them turn over their emails for inspection. The problem isn’t just that they lied and conspired to indict the oil industry by comparing them to the tobacco industry–it’s that they were being paid with public funds while this was going on. Using essentially public owned computers and their emails on public owned servers. So when the public said, HEY we want to see those–they said, “oh we don’t have those–so go away”.

      The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) is not just for asking the CIA about their alien files. Anyone can ask any public institution for information about anything that isn’t already available. In this case, the CEI asked these professors for proof–and they said they didn’t have anything. Well, turns out they sure did.

      If they had been smart–they would have done this away from the university, using their own private emails and servers. But they weren’t smart–and probably though they wouldn’t get caught.

    • I shall try. The RICO 20 professors wrote a letter to President Obama and the Attorney General advocating use of RICO, an anti Mafia law, against climate skeptics. Shukla was the lead signatory. This followed on RI Senator Whitehouse advocacy of same. As a Senator, he is unfortunately untouchable. As professors, these warmunists aren’t.
      Two separate consequences followed.
      First, turns out Shukla was double dipping from NSF research grants (a federal crime) and not following Virginia/GMU rules on moonlighting (which is how he double dipped), a Virginia crime. Pielke Sr. and McIntyre, with help from yours truely, caught him out. Rep. Lamar Smith, head of the Congressional Oversight committee for NSF, investigated, found our blog findings substantiated, and has referred the matter to the NSF Inspector General for appropriate legal action, which includes criminal incarceration (last case was 4 years) and restitution (in Shuklas case, best as we can estimate, $6.9 million). There are subplots which make Shukla’s situation even worse, like filing false Virginia forms and diverting grant moneymto relatives in India.
      Second, there are civil rights laws making conspiracy to deny civil rights like free speech a crime under 18USC241, and subject to civil lawsuits for damages under 48USC1985 and maybe 1983. So the Freedom of Information request for emails pertaining to the origins of the RICO 20 letter were seeking email evidence of conspiracy by the RICO 20. Shukla and 19 friends responded there were none. That has been proven grossly false even before the judge’s new ruling. They lied. They have thereby proven their conspiracy.
      So the upshot is not only do they have to disclose everything, their behavior already self proves liability under the above civil rights statutes. These folks are going to owe millions, and several may well end up in prison. NOT what they intended. BUT what they deserve.
      BTW, same is true for the US Virgin Islands AG subpoena of EXXON and CEI. Slightly different legal reasoning, same results.
      An American baseball idiom. Warmunists tried to play hardball (we have softball and hardball baseball). They just lost. Hardball has consequences that can really hurt.

      • Thank you for the clearest explanation I’ve seen yet!
        Questions for you…the AGs, are they subject to the 18USC241 or 48USC1985 also?
        And Senator Whitehouse, if he’s not subject to the Codes for some reason, could the Senate censor or expell him?

      • Flicka, so far as I know, NOBODY is exempt from the civil rights laws. That was their congressional intent, back in the day.

      • Flika:
        18 USC 241/242 is specifically aimed at political entities: Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law is a felony.

    • If you could explain what you mean in more detail, then someone could most likely help you. Do you have problems with the English language?

      • There are two possible responses. 1. You forgot a sarc. 2. You are not an attorney, and therefore do not appreciate the precision with which potentially libellous accusations must be leveled. As Steyn has regretably found in re Mann.
        I cannot think of a third reasonable response. Short summary is legally dangerous. Besides, now you can make your own, at your risk. Try calling Shukla a criminally double dipping warmunist liar. Like I just did, using many more words. :)

      • Your comments weren’t up when I made my comment. I have to remember in the future to specify who my comment was aimed at. Sorry for the confusion.

  11. I have read through the emails and communications at JunkScience. Apart from the sheer silliness and narrow-mindedness of a number of the writers, I am not sure what else there is of note in the sample provided. It seems to me pretty clear that these guys were doing this while ostensibly working for the State via their Universities – a form of co-mingling. It seems to me that to support an alternative interpretation they would have to take personal days or time and document it accordingly.
    What else is being looked for?

    • They are free to go home and write emails on their personal account from there. These were sent from their employer’s email accounts, while on the clock.

      • In some states it is against the law to use state owned computers for any personnel business. Primarily aimed at computation and word processing but even includes email. Falls under rules covering the “use of public resources and funds.” Have seen this used to get rid of unwanted employees as they are prone to over use computers for personnel use.

      • They were sent from their employer’s email accounts.
        The RICO letter was sent on official letterhead.
        The signers used their professional titles.
        The activities were coordinated on official time.

        For many salaried employees, there is no official difference between official and unofficial time as the employee is responsible 24/7 to their employer.

      • My point was if they would have done this privately from the beginning, I doubt they would be in the situation they are now. It appears they used the university letter heads as an appeal to authority. That made their emails university property and subject to FOIA. They then lied in response to the initial FOIA requests. They could have setup some ‘concernedscientists@gmalil’ and avoided this pickle.

        However, looking at Curt Schilling, doing things on private time does not shield one from their employer’s wrath.

      • It was far more than just the letterhead. Check the list I wrote earlier.

        Plus salaried officials with senior, executive, managerial standing are presumed to be representing their employers unless otherwise explicitly specified.

        A salaried executive or senior researcher that speaks out publicly and shames, demeans, is inconsiderate or a host of other less salacious appearances is usually penalized or punished by their employer. In egregious circumstances, they’re terminated for cause, often without benefits.

        In other words it will take steps much more aggressive than just going home to write their emails, to separate Shukla, Maibach, Trenberth, and quite a few of the others from their respective organizations.

        A complete severance of association with the University.
        Use of privately financed communication services and equipment.
        Zero reference to official positions or work at the University.
        Zero effort to involve students, colleagues and co-workers.

        Running home from work and using equipment or services paid for by University services or using any reference to their job positions or authority and even allegedly private emails become business emails.

      • I hate to break it to you but “on the clock” has little meaning in academia.

    • Conspiracy to intimidate or otherwise supress civil rights such as 1st Amendment free speech on global warming. Criminal violation of the KuKluxKlan act 18USC241, civil violation of 48USC1985.

      • Rud:
        But I see nothing that rises to the level of what was visible in the Climategate emails. I understand the content of the letter and its intended effect, but everyone is free to write such a letter on their own dime.

      • Bernie, I see it multiply differently. This is not Climategate. And have posted here and elsewhere on same. Is criminal.

    • Wow, some sheeple are just simply blind to reality ! They were “On The Clock”. AKA, being paid public taxpayers money ! D’oh !

  12. You would think they would be savvy enough to NOT use their official school email accounts to make these communiques. State school = public records. (Of course, they probably think the same thing Hillary does: rules are for the little people.) GMU will fight to try to keep the school’s reputation intact (the admins are all about the money and attention), so they will probably continue trying to make this go away. If it starts looking like a loss and/or donors start getting leery, GMU might just quietly drop these guys. One can only hope. George Mason is spinning in his grave.

    • When a department of Duke got caught violating NSF rules, the punishment was 2 years no fed grants to the entire university. GMU has already been caught out in worse; the only question left is the punishment. I don’t think OBama can torque the established NSF precedents. And Rep. Smith’s NSF congressional oversight committee has commanded the NSF IG to act, and keep his committee informed of those actions. Popcorn futures are UP.

  13. Not normally ‘for’ witch-hunts but, the manner in which Shukla turned on Bill Gray would make this particular slap-fest a delicious dish to savor. At length. With relish. And mustard. Or custard.

  14. ” The scientists allege that the aforementioned interests “knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, in order to forestall America’s response to climate change.””

    Can somebody point to examples of the oil industry trying to influence the public about climate change? I can’t recall ever seeing an ad in any form about climate change by an oil company. What I have seen are commercials by environmental groups about melting ice and dying polar bears. I’ve also seen episodes of “Nature” and “Nova” that assert great current and future harm to the world because of climate change, along with claims by politicians, movies stars and activists along the same lines. As far as I can tell the attempts at public influence are largely one-sided.

    • “Can somebody point to examples of the oil industry trying to influence the public about climate change? I can’t recall ever seeing an ad in any form about climate change by an oil company. …”
      Nope, I can’t recall any examples at all. However I do recall, in the 1980’s, UK television adverts about BP (a – horrors – oil company!), providing research, development and funding for solar power in Africa. Greenies are spiteful morons.

      • That was BP’s ‘beyond petroleum’ campaign which was headed by their radical old leader who thought there was a future and fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid. He was strongly influenced by PK Prahalad’s ideas and formed the Emerging Markets Team of about a dozen experts, then advised by Craig Cohon of Coke and Cirque de Soleil fame.

        This visionary was ousted by his understudy in a corporate coup that is a strange story. This nameless shameless underling then led BP into the Deepwater Horizon disaster and, after making silly comments about wanting his life back, was thankfully fired.

        Unfortunately the Emerging Markets team was by then destroyed, shutting down pro-poor technology development projects in India and South Africa that were still below the horizon. The solar PV stuff was more developed and visible.

    • Can’t pinpoint an exact ad or date, or even company- but I have seen several eco-friendly ads, both print and TC, from BP(trying make up for the oil spill), Exxon, and Shell.

      Several of the released Exxon papers show the company was studying CO2 and climate change and trying to understand it. They seemed to have had a hard time reconciling their scientific knowlege with other published works used by the IPCC.

    • Keep all that in mind when the lawsuits begin for THEIR ACTUAL deception. The oil companies COULDN’T HAVE “deceived” anyone, because there is no proof of any “climate catastrophe” from human CO2 emissions from fossil fuel use.

  15. seems to me that what they are doing actually fits the RICO statute to a tee … a criminal enterprise engaged in fraud for monetary gain …

    • Yup! And just imagine what all the digging into the politically connected’s finances will show when “investments” conveniently timed just before “green” legislation was passed (which artificially pumped up the price of those “investments”) are considered in the light of day.

  16. I was casually wondering to myself, how could it be that Edward Maibach PhD. is so ignorant of the skeptics case and their quite genuine cause for skepticism.
    I thought – surely a PhD scientist with qualifications in relevant areas of science should grasp that the concerns of people such as Judith Curry are genuine.
    So, then I asked myself, what training does Maibach have and what is his specialism.
    I was quite surprised to discover that his training is in PSYCHOLOGY and that his specialist area is MASS BRAINWASHING. And that in his spare time he cultivates TV weathercasters. Presumably to replace weathercasters who have been sacked for observing that the weather is no more “extreme” than when they were a child.
    It seems that the alarmists are happy to admit that their job is purely to brainwash people, and that they have no training that would give them an ability to assess the verity of claims made regarding the future of the earth’s climate.

    “Edward Maibach – a Mason distinguished University Professor – is a communication scientist who is expert in the uses of strategic communication and social marketing to address climate change and related public health challenges. His research – funded by NSF, NASA and private foundations – focuses on public understanding of climate change and clean energy; the psychology underlying public engagement; and cultivating TV weathercasters, health professionals, and climate scientists as effective climate educators. ”
    More here: http://www.climatechangecommunication.org/portfolio-view/edward-maibach-4/

    • So GMU has an entire department, funded in part by the government, not to find out if climate change is real or not, but to train people in the media to spread the propaganda.

      • And to destroy the evil forces of scientific inquiry and skepticism.
        Which they plan to do by promoting a grand conspir@cy theory.
        So, for all those people who ask questions, or have doubts about the cult of climate hysteria – it is important to recognize that those doubts have been manufactured by the oil industry and planted in your brain. (sarc.)

      • It gets better. There are classes at GMU that require students to study the climate change institute’s polls, and to conduct “surveys” in the community about climate change. In one of those courses, students then have to go to a local high school to present their “results” and promote the idea that WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE AND IT IS THE DEVELOPED WORLD’S FAULT. Imagine what could be accomplished if all that money, time, and effort were being directed toward an actual problem, that could actually be solved.

        This will sound awfully snooty, but what on earth is a “communication scientist”? That sounds made up, like someone is trying to make their work and ideas seem more legitimate than they really are.

      • That’s a fancy term for a propagandist. The good doctor has a PhD in Psychology and studies the ways to more effectively convince people of certain opinions.

      • Yeah, there is a growing need for “information specialists” in the Alarmist community. They need to figure out how to communicate the CAGW danger to the great unwashed, who have been fooled by Exxon and CAGW Skeptics into thinking there is no danger.

    • So that explains why our local TV weather guys say things like “there’s a 30% chance of warmer than normal temperatures over the next 3 months.” Of course most folks don’t realize this is the same as saying there’s a 70% chance of cooler than normal temps. AGM spin is everywhere.

      • well, no. there’s not just ‘warmer than’ and ‘cooler than’, there’s also the overall average, so it means a 70% chance of average warmth, 30% higher. if s/he meant a 70% chance of it being cooler they no doubt would have gone w the more inflammatory number cos thats what the media does.

      • I agree with Rick. Temps don’t often land right on ‘normal’ – usually they’re either above or below.

    • I note that the term, “social engineering” has recently (over the past decade, perhaps?) taken on a new meaning in the vernacular. It used to refer to a fairly surreptitious and organized effort (usually by government, I propose) to manipulate group behaviour or thinking to a desired outcome.

      Now, it’s commonly understood to mean tricking people into giving out confidential information, especially with regards to computer access. Semantics again – redefining known words and terms into something other than their original meaning, a great tactic. If you can’t effectively describe something, how can you understand, communicate or fight against it?

      Isn’t that ironic?

  17. And since they referenced using personal email to protect against FOIA does that open them up for additional lawsuits?

    • I think that would be true only if, as Hillary Clinton did, switch their official work correspondence to private, unsecured channels. These communications were private, being done on their employer’s dime.

      When I’m at work I have two tabs open in my browser – one for work email, the other for private.

      • But that would still be done on company time and with company property (even if in different tabs). Plus, I’ll bet that there’s a digital record of whatever happened to or from that “private” tab. Maybe only in an obscure TMP file, but it’s most likely still there.

      • Your correct, but I keep them strictly segregated (it’s not hard) and I keep the work time on personal mail to a minimum. Often stuff from my wife.

        Sometimes I want to ask a client for a favor or something out of the ordinary, and I know that if I put it in an email his superiors will have every opportunity to read it – so I’ll save it for a phone call or a personal meeting.

  18. Good to see these “researchers” spending so much time “researching”.

  19. “A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.”—Winston Churchill
    Basically, the big money is to be made in the time differential. The same goes for policy over reach.

  20. I smell personal liability coming soon to the cast of 20 and many others. What a bunch of arrogant, oppressive people.

    They deserve what is coming for them.

    The moral, ethical, social, and economic decay continues at a rapid pace in the USA via the current administration.This is just another example of what happens when you empower liberal progressives who think they are above the law. The next election cannot come soon enough!

    • Liberals have no morals or ethics…To them, the end justifies the means…no matter what !

      • Marcus15,
        So I’m not the only person to have come to the conclusion that liberals feel that any and all means are justified by their ends.

      • “Progressives” too often see things as they think they should be, rather than how they are. And it pisses me off that classical liberalism has been hijacked by the looney left.

    • I spent four years from 2008 to 2012 looking forward with great expectations to the next election. Unfortunately, the forces of evil proved too powerful. I still have hope for 2016, but my faith in the American electorate has been shaken. I feel like I hardly know my country any more.

      • You are not alone, as evidenced by the actionable response of the populous and legal process to the continued assault on this great county’s earned rights and preferred way of life through a democratic process. Never give up, we are the vast majority that has been too quiet and is finally tired of it!

  21. Considering the sheer volume of advanced degrees among these individuals, there is an overwhelming naivete and sheer stupidity surrounding their words and actions.

    Seriously…. these professors are freaking retards. Which goes a long way to explain people like Mann and Gleick and their ridiculous behavior.

    Two aspects also jump out.

    Absence of doubt. They truly believe that what they are doing is correct and right.

    And assumption of immunity from their actions. They actually think they can get away with this bullshit, trying to lever their respective higher positions in academia to lend weight to their pontifications while doing all this on company time and company computers and using company email systems, then conveniently claiming it was all personal opinion done on personal time. Do they really think people are stupid enough to buy this crap?

    • you are spot on there. a high level education only proves capacity for memory, not how to use the information the memory stores. this is great news, it is about time someone put the reigns on these clowns.

      all we need now is for the oil and energy companies to withdraw all fossil fuel based energy from every single state and country that are stupid enough to demonise the fossil fuel industry, starting with california (sorry anthony) to bring reality home in as harsh a way as possible to the people that continually vote the clowns into office that support this nonsense.

    • Terry @ 2:07 pm, For a long time people were just told to believe and respect anyone with “authority” like the “copper”, the “doctor”, the “priest” the mailman and so on, I believe that meekness has finally come to an end, I just think many of those people in the establishment just haven’t realized it yet.
      I may not be right on this but the NET has and is having a huge influence on how things are being perceived, things that used to take weeks if not months to get into the average guy’s living room now are there within hours if not minutes!

    • It’s the complete lack of doubt or any perspective that I find astonishing. Intelligent people I’m sure but utterly and willfully blind to the greater importance of open scientific debate. “Scientists” who are anti-science!

      • I’m a consultant and data provider in sports analytics. It’s not climate, but there are a lot of similar things in how data is collected asnd and analyzed. I have a couple friends who are brilliant in math. They are also liberals and seem to check their brain at the door when it comes to politics (and yes, global warming is politics). If they would do critical analysis of climate change to a fraction of a degree that they do with sports, they’d stop believing in a minute. But for them, it’s gospel.

  22. So basically, it’s like a gang of thieves on their way to rob a bank getting stopped for speeding.

  23. I suppose the answer to the question, “Who will protect us from our protectors?”

    is, “The courts.”

    The next question is then, “For how much longer?”

    We are quickly coming to the brink of losing it all, when the Capital dictates acceptable dogma.

  24. I don’t see anything in this that is surprising or damning in any way. I know this post says:

    Here’s the worst part – they knowingly tried to circumvent future FOIA requests:

    But seems an iffy description at best. Consider what Edward Maibach wrote:

    It is my position that the time I spent preparing out letter was not conducted in the course of public business. Rather, it was conducted in my capacity as a private citizen, on my own time. I was not paid by George Mason to create this document, nor does the document relate to the duties listed on my job description. Therefore, I do not believe we have an obligation to disclose my emails related to the RICO letter.

    Whether or not one agrees with his view on FOI law, it hardly seems appropriate to say people “knowingly tried to circumvent future FOIA requests” for trying to do their private activism on private accounts rather than involving their university.

    • that’s why we have the law courts Brandon. You have one opinion, others have a different opinion. I happen to disagree with you. so what.

    • Brandon, you missed the legal plot here. It was done on his GMU computer/server/ email account. He admits that. Does not matter legally whether at 2am on ‘his own time’. The law cares about where and how, not when. And whether he was ‘paid’ matters not. He used paid for by Virginia GMU resources for supposedly private purposes. In any company I have been associated with, the most polite term for that is ‘diversion’, and the most legally precise is ‘property theft’. There is literally no legal Maibach defense I can think of. And as a licensed lawyer, have been thinking for months on this with many previous comments around the blogosphere.

      • No. It is not “property theft” to use a work e-mail account for non-work purposes. That is done all the time. It isn’t anything, except perhaps unwise. Some organizations specifically instruct people not to do it, others happily allow it. There is no basis for creating some blanket statement implying criminal activity because someone chose to use a workplace e-mail for some personal matters.

        Edward Maibach may be wrong about FOI law, but he didn’t commit a crime by sending these e-mails. And as far as anyone has shown, he didn’t do anything that should have been connected to his job. If he had used a private e-mail account from the start, this entire discussion fork would be non-existent.

      • …Brandon, it must be nice to live in a world full of Pixie Dust and Fairy Kisses, but in the real world…we have to live within the laws of reality !

      • Brandon, you are obviously missing Ristvan’s points.
        Firstly, the emails are not his. Any work done for a university remains the property of the university, including intellectual property. As such, he has no basis for declaring that they are exempt from and FOI request. You note that he does not try to declare them private property? Because he knows that they are not.

        Secondly, the emails in aggregate will potentially show a conspiracy was formed with an intent that may have led to a breach of other laws. That has yet to be judged in a court of law, so as yet, no criminal or civil violation has been found.

        And to put a final nail in your argument, Edward Maibach’s day job is to communicate about climate change:
        “His research – funded by NSF, NASA and private foundations – focuses on public understanding of climate change and clean energy; the psychology underlying public engagement; …” (see http://www.climatechangecommunication.org/portfolio-view/edward-maibach-4/)
        I would like to see his explanation for how his “private” behaviour is not directly connected to his job. Even if he had used a private email account, his employer would be asking him to explain this serious conflict of interest. As it is, he and his colleagues have brought his employer into significant disrepute.

      • Brandon Shollenberger May 13, 2016 at 3:08 pm

        Wrong Brandon you are missing the point. You can’t even charge your personal phone, Its called stealing.
        Think I’m over harsh? These people were not working on sanctioned activities that the State and Granting organizations had agreed to. Game over.

        michael

      • It might be better to differentiate between “property theft” and “theft of services”.

        Many public employers have specific rules against employees using equipment,
        systems, and services meant for institutional use and are NOT legally available to
        the citizenry at large.

        In public academic institutions such “rules” show up in civil service rules & regulations
        for classified and unclassified employees, and are usually reflected in personal
        service contracts for academic staff.

        The use of “company” equipment to knowingly conspire to or actually violate the
        civil rights of others opens a huge can of legal worms for both the conspirators AND
        the institution. Generally, the institution will be prohibited from mounting legal
        defenses for willful violators of civil rights laws… and most errors and omissions
        policies covering academic folk are void in such instances.

        Unbuttered salt on my popcorn, please.

    • Excuse me. If those people had been “trying to do their private activism etc.” there would have been no need for the Email, late in the day, to ask for their personal Email addresses – they would already be known.

      • No. People often use work e-mail accounts for things not related to work. When it occurs to them that might cause attention to be paid to those e-mails, with them even potentially being released to the public, they, it is natural they might chose to use different e-mail accounts.

        Perhaps they should have thought of it sooner, but that hardly shows nefariousness. Unless these people actually thought their activism was tied to their job duties, them deciding not to have it subjected to the oversight of their employers is unremarkable.

      • Brandon – Generally, I believe you are correct that it’s not illegal to send personal emails from a work account. However, as I tell my coworkers, if you do, those emails are no longer private, and you must assume that other people in the company can and will read them.

        Even if the messages were strictly personal, putting them on the university email made them fall under the scope of FOIA. The act of sending the email may not be criminal, but the contents of the emails may disclose criminal activity.

      • Brandon, “No. It is not “property theft” to use a work e-mail account for non-work purposes. That is done all the time.”

        It is whatever you agreed to when you signed the paperwork for the job. Company I worked for said specifically that while email and internet were not provided for the personal use of employees innocuous and inconsequential uses, such as sending emails home for scheduling with the wife, etc. or browsing during lunch hour after work wouldn’t generally be audited unless the issue came up for some other reason such as an employee performance review. In any case the emails were company property and so were all uses of the equipment.

        Such terms and conditions were almost certainly included in Mr. Maibach’s employment contract, also in the GMU ethics policies and other university policies and regulations. Not the least of which would be complying with regulations covering grant moneys, equipment, and actions done under them.

        On the face of it he would be wise to consult appropriate attorneys on his own dime and time. GMU’s own attorneys will be looking out for the university, not Mr. Maibach’s best interest. It’s of no consequence that much personal use of email, company computers, and equipment is done. That doesn’t mean that employees can’t be misusing the privileges or liberties that are allowed by conspiring to commit crimes.

      • blcartwright:

        Brandon – Generally, I believe you are correct that it’s not illegal to send personal emails from a work account. However, as I tell my coworkers, if you do, those emails are no longer private, and you must assume that other people in the company can and will read them.

        Of course. I don’t disagree at all. I’ve said the same thing many times myself. The issue is people implied nefariousness over people sending personal e-mails from a work account then deciding to switch to personal accounts. That isn’t nefarious at all. It certainly isn’t reasonable to call that an evasion of FOI laws.

        phil cartier:

        Brandon, “No. It is not “property theft” to use a work e-mail account for non-work purposes. That is done all the time.”

        It is whatever you agreed to when you signed the paperwork for the job. Company I worked for said specifically that while email and internet were not provided for the personal use of employees innocuous and inconsequential uses

        That is true. It is certainly possible for employers to restrict how their employees use their work accounts. If someone could find an agreement regarding the use of the university e-mail accounts used here, it might turn out there was misuse. We can’t just assume there was misuse though. It’s quite possible (and I suspect even likely) this was within the accepted norms of university e-mail.

      • Brandon – also to the illegality of hiding from FOIA. That does not involve moving future conversation to private email accounts (as long as they are truly private, and not work-related conversations). The defendants knew the requested emails existed and were on the GMU system, but they lied and said the emails did not exist or could not be found. “There’s nothing here!” They can possibly be prosecuted for those lies.

      • Brandon Shollenberger May 13, 2016 at 3:03 pm
        No. People often use work e-mail accounts for things not related to work.

        “No. People often steal work e-mail accounts for things not related to work”.

        whats the difference?
        michael

      • blcartwright:

        Brandon – also to the illegality of hiding from FOIA. That does not involve moving future conversation to private email accounts (as long as they are truly private, and not work-related conversations). The defendants knew the requested emails existed and were on the GMU system, but they lied and said the emails did not exist or could not be found. “There’s nothing here!” They can possibly be prosecuted for those lies.

        There is no evidence they said anything of the sort. I just wrote about this below, so see my comment there. If they really did say what you claim, please provide an actual quote where they do so. Even the CEI didn’t claim this in their filings.

        Mike the Morlock:

        No. People often use work e-mail accounts for things not related to work.

        “No. People often steal work e-mail accounts for things not related to work”.

        whats the difference?

        To put it bluntly, one is reasonable and sane while the other is not. The reality is m any workplaces have no problem with people using their phones/e-mail servers for personal communication as long as it doesn’t interfere with their operations. Some even give specific permission or guidance regarding it. Claiming people are “stealing” because they use work resources in a way their employers not only tolerate, but way well give explicit permission for, is not reasonable at all.

    • Brandon, you might have a point there, OTOH, it seems they had a long history of emails on IGES and GMU account prior to that email. They made the letter with the 20 signatories public on Sept 1st, 2015, and then on October 2nd 2015 called for them to start using private accounts. In one of the emails shown above at the top on Sept 29th Maibach says: “The situation with the RICO letter continues to escalate rapidly” in response to the public pushback they were getting. Just three days later, he and Shukla are calling for the private email addresses.

      It seems clear to me they wanted to “go dark” after realizing they have an uncomfortable situation on their hands. While you can certainly argue they may or may not have wanted to circumvent FOIA laws, the fact that this comes after they get a load of vocal public pushback suggests a wagon-circling exercise to me.

      Maibach used his GMU email account many times prior to that to design, solicit, and promote this letter. His claim that it wasn’t done on the public dime really doesn’t hold up given he used the GMU email address for months for that purpose prior to asking for use of private email on October 2nd.

      • It shows how stupid these people are that the never considered that in the first place, so it also shows incompetence in planning.

        Clowns, how many of these thieving idiots could you fit in a mini?

      • Oh, and let’s not forget, they lied about having these emails at all in response to early FOIA requests. If that’s not knowingly circumventing FOIA, I don’t know what is.

      • ..Anthony, what you are forgetting is the difference between their Email having the “Letterhead” of an institution (work/GSU) or just their name( private).. They sullied the name of the GSU just by using GSU accounts …

      • Anthony Watts:

        It seems clear to me they wanted to “go dark” after realizing they have an uncomfortable situation on their hands. While you can certainly argue they may or may not have wanted to circumvent FOIA laws, the fact that this comes after they get a load of vocal public pushback suggests a wagon-circling exercise to me.

        Of course. They realized by using university accounts for their personal activism they created the potential for people to use things like FOI laws to examine aspects of that activism. That helped cause them to decide to stop using work accounts for their personal activism. But people deciding to stop using work accounts for personal activism cannot reasonably be described as conspiring to circumvent FOI requests. FOI requests should never have applied to this activism in the first place (as they should not have used work accounts for it).

        Maibach used his GMU email account many times prior to that to design, solicit, and promote this letter. His claim that it wasn’t done on the public dime really doesn’t hold up given he used the GMU email address for months for that purpose prior to asking for use of private email on October 2nd.

        There is nothing about using one’s work account to send e-mails which implies one is being paid to send those e-mails. All it says is that’s how they knew to get in touch with one another. There are tons of non-work e-mails in university mail servers. (Heck, just look at how many are in the ~200k Climategate e-mails.)

        Oh, and let’s not forget, they lied about having these emails at all in response to early FOIA requests. If that’s not knowingly circumventing FOIA, I don’t know what is.

        Where, exactly, did they lie about having these e-mails?

      • “The ruling concluded that by leaving it to faculty who simply told the school’s FOIA officer they had no responsive records,

        In 2015, George Mason University (GMU) faculty claimed “no records” existed in response to CEI VFOIA request for records”

      • I was hoping our host would respond to explain his serious accusation of lying, but since he didn’t, I’ll go with Latitude’s comment:

        “The ruling concluded that by leaving it to faculty who simply told the school’s FOIA officer they had no responsive records,

        In 2015, George Mason University (GMU) faculty claimed “no records” existed in response to CEI VFOIA request for records”

        These are two quotes from a press release by CEI. They’re not a legal finding, and they don’t involve any quotes from anybody that could be labeled lies. The words “no records” placed in quotations are not a quote from any resonse, but rather a shorthand phrase CEI used in their lawsuit.

        The reality is the released e-mails show no lying was involved. Edward Maibach clearly indicated he did not believe his e-mails were public records, and as such, provided none in response to the FOI request. He clearly spelled out his reasoning for this to the FOI officer.

        His reasoning was absolutely wrong, and the FOI officer should never have allowed it. Quite frankly, she gave him bad instructions regarding the FOI requests which made his position tenable. Had she actually done her job well, she would have explained why his position was misguided and based upon confusion. She didn’t. Whether it was because of she misunderstood him, is incompetent, is lazy or is completely dishonest is impossible to know.

        What we can know is the university’s method for handling FOI requests was bad, its FOI officer did not do her job properly, and these e-mails should have been released from the start. That doesn’t mean anybody lied though.

      • ristvan:

        Brandon, per your comment, you really need to learn more law. A lot more.

        This sort of comment is useless. If you don’t have anything to contribute, plese just don’t respond to me. It wastes everybody’s time.

      • And of course it doesn’t matter where you work, the choice of out going email account* is up to the sender. It is a deliberate choice as far as I’m concerned and that is what has bitten them! They used the authority of their institutions to make an impression, a political and tactical decision that they latter regretted.

        *The “send from” address. A choice of account is available from any email application and associated web interfaces are also always accessible.

      • Brandon’s first comment, “for trying to do their private activism on private accounts rather than involving their university.” No, not “rather than”, but “after”. You can’t dispute that they did involve GMU, can you? That the Comm. Director was, at the very least, indicating this conversation should not be on GMU’s system, for some reason? At which point, it had occurred on that very system? I don’t disagree private activism should be on private accounts, for more than one reason (at least two; the one you see and the one you refuse to see). To that point, it’s a routine FOIA request. Then, you recognize Maibach’s response is wrong, but Anthony shouldn’t call it a lie. Where to begin-let’s try the beginning. The letter itself calls for prosecution of opinion advocacy, which is to say, demanding gov’ts sworn to protect free speech investigate that which it’s supposed to protect. The letter itself was improper activism, agreed? Before you disagree, have you considered that your exposure of Mann’s fraud may mean the next VI (or NY) subpoena is coming your way? Because that’s what the letter demanded (indirectly). Anyway, in response to allegations by skeptics of improper activism and calls for FOIA requests (at this very site, did you comment there?), the Comm Dir. directs the conversation go private. Maybe for legitimate reason, maybe to hide, maybe both. Up to there, maybe you can give him the benefit of the doubt. But (here’s my point-sorry for the long but necessary buildup) Maibach’s written response that the background communications leading to a letter communicating climate change advocacy is not related to his job as CC Comm. Dir., communicated on GMU accounts, is a plain lie even if you are blind to it. Shukla saw it as Maibach’s job, does that count? Criminal convictions requiring a knowing lie are made on less circumstantial evidence than this. If gov’t atty decided to investigate the letter as a civ. rts violation of individual skeptics and this email was private from the jump, he or she could get it by subpoena, no?

    • Brandon,
      You know that you write nonsense here.
      Consider how hard it would be for a Maibach to pick up a phone and call any number of ‘important’ people, if he did not have the credentials associated with his university post.
      When one takes a senior office, it is implicit in acceptance that there is duty to uphold several historical concepts like honesty. This is held so important that governments often require oaths as part of the administration.
      Are you arguing in favour of universities being a new Wild West of lawlessness by force?
      Geoff.

      • Geoff Sherrington:

        Brandon,
        You know that you write nonsense here.

        Really? That’s the sort of response I’m going to get? Not only are you going to say I’m wrong, you’re going to claim I know it is wrong too… really? I hope you realize how silly that is. Not only is that rude, it’s demonstrably false as there is no chance I’d ever agree with the depiction you give. You say:

        Consider how hard it would be for a Maibach to pick up a phone and call any number of ‘important’ people, if he did not have the credentials associated with his university post.

        But the fact one’s job can increase their credibility does nothing to suggest any e-mail they send from a workplace account is part of their professional career. When somebody like James Hansen spent his personal time as a global warming activist, he wasn’t getting paid for it. When he e-mailed people from a private e-mail account to discuss his activism, he wasn’t trying to circumvent FOIA laws. That his activism was more successful because of his government position doesn’t somehow make his activism fall in the purview of laws designed to give people oversight of governmental operations.

        Are you arguing in favour of universities being a new Wild West of lawlessness by force?
        Geoff.

        Are you arguing Scottie Pippen couldn’t have a successful career without Michael Jordan on his team? That’s about as connected to anything I’ve said as your question is to anything I’ve said. And you probably know that. After all, you know what you’re writing is nonsense. I can tell because my ESP lets me read your mind and see all your nefarious thoughts.

      • Brandon: Any e-mail they send from a workplace account belongs to their employer. If that employer is the government or a state run school, they will fall under FOIA. These people don’t seem to have realized that everything they wrote on the university emails could one day be expected to become public knowledge, and expose their conversations to scrutiny. If, when the authorities examine the details of how the initial search at GMU turned up empty, find that people lied, then punishment for that may follow.

    • Falls under rules covering the “use of public resources and funds” as described in your state laws. Federal laws also apply if federal funds are involved, which is the case here.

  25. “The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) prevailed in a Virginia Freedom of Information Act (VFOIA) lawsuit against George Mason University (GMU).”

    “This victory puts on notice those academics who have increasingly inserted themselves into politics, that they cannot use taxpayer-funded positions to go after those who disagree with them and expect to hide it,” said Chris Horner, CEI fellow and co-plaintiff. ”

    Don’t you just love the smell of science here! Scientists quacking in their boots when confronted with the all-compassionate power of the CEI! Oh dear, oh dear.

    • What are you babbling about? Scientists are ducks? And pray tell, what “science” were the Gang of 20 doing?

    • You dont want to discuss the contexts of the emails do you tho..

      Can’t use #exxonknew now can you lol

    • You must be gutted Wagen, this essentially is the proof there is no line between activism politics ideology and science with these people

      There was never any proof Exxon did anything, it was all started by Macarth.. I mean Whitehouse

      political witch hunt.

      Or are you going to go all denial on us

    • Quacking in their boots???. The girl in the orange sweater on the left side of the above photo seems to enjoy wearing boots…. As to weather she quacks or would quack when confronted with “compassionate power” (???) or any other type of power is something that remains as an unknown.

      And is she a scientist? she doesn’t seem to be named and labeled like the others in the photo, so it is hard to tell fur sure.

      Your sarcastic inference that they would not be concerned is a little silly. First they tried to hide, then they lied, then they got caught, then they tried to cover up, then they were exposed. All the while soliciting for (free?) legal advice, and wondering weather they they could make they light and attention go away by “retracting” the letter.

      I do believe that a few of them are quitely quacking (boots or no); and if they are subject to/of reasonable and competent investigation then a few more will be very quietly singing to cover their assess.

      • ..If Trump gets elected, they won’t be “Quacking in their Boots”, they’ll be chitting in their pants ! ( I have to put nice words because I’ve been too aggressive against fools, so I’m sensored)

    • Where I live we have a lot of ducks in the streams that meander around our housing units but if I were one of the Rico 20, I might be quaking in my boots but leave the quacking to the ducks. I’ve heard doctors with PhD’s being called quacks before so I’m not sure if you thought quacks when you saw the PhD’s next to signers names.

  26. This deserves a name. “ShuklaGate”?
    (If those involved had the right names it could have been “ShuklaFranandOllieGate”!8-)

    • gunga, I feel that “Water Gate” covers it nicely, particularly regarding your moniker. Or course the more common name “Traitors Gate” applies as well.

  27. Trenberth? Surely not the star of the “Climategate” email scandal way back then? He must be a slow learner.

  28. OMG…London, Ontario in Southern Canada just got a Weather Warning of an approaching snowstorm….halfway through April !! Glo.Bull Warming is going to bring on the next Ice Age in Canada ! LOL

    • It’s May.

      And we have a freeze warning.

      People thought I was nuts to wait until Memorial Day to plant my veggie garden–they now know why I wait while they are covering their seedlings, mine are safe and sound inside.

    • no no no NO!

      Cold weather is weather, warm weather is man made.

      You’re doing it wrong :p

  29. Just my thoughts:

    Alex Bozomski admits it’s all about hard-left politics and not science:
    “..it’s just an impossible to not scream hard-core left. You’re talking about prosecuting Conservatives”

    Ed Maibach pretty much confirms that it’s got a liberal agenda:
    “I hope you will highlight any language that screams ‘liberal drivel’”

    Edward Sarachik seem to be angling for going after individual sceptics:
    “Does the RICO only apply to organizations or are individuals also liable?”

    Shukla drafted in the help of his assistant Colin Nackerman who Shukla admits is a “dedicated activist.”
    If you check out Nackerman’s Linkedin profile you can see he is linked to all the usual radical campus groups including 350org. https://www.linkedin.com/in/colinnackerman
    Nackerman is a typical example of the kind of SJWs that Shukla is mixing with.

    One of the correspondents Bob (?) talks about Prince Charles being included on a trip to Antarctica. “The Prince said he’d consider it, minding that he not get too far into policy and politics”
    This will infuriate people in the UK, as Prince Charles should not be involved in politics AT ALL, but seems to be admitting that he IS in fact getting involved in political matters.

    Shukla’s double-dipping has come to light in the media, but EM tries to maintain to Chris Mooney that Shukla is “…honest and honourable, and a dedicated servant to humanity”
    It seems Maibach is prepared to defend the indefensible!

    Amongst all the emails Barry Klinger (Assoc Prof at GMU) provides a link to an interesting web-page of his:
    http://mason.gmu.edu/~bklinger/rico.html
    I’ll let WUWT readers to give their opinions of what Barry has written.

    • i liked the effort to paint shukla as a sceptic at the end, using a paper he wrote on natural variability that states it cannot account for 0.8c warming of sea surface temps but can negate the lack of warming over the last decade. yet another “pause buster”. lmao.

    • I read the letter and in it was this:
      “Humans only contribute to the “forced” variability, so the “Unforced Multidecadal” part is natural). Furthermore, how about if the Abstract of that paper said the following:

      …internal multidecadal pattern (IMP) is stochastic… and is of sufficient amplitude to explain the acceleration in warming during 1977-2008 as compared to 1946-77.

      Wasn’t there a pause that even the UN admitted? BTW that letter was a really obtuse piece of work IMHO. but hey I have been wrong before I just can’t remember when (sarc).

  30. I am experiencing a little chuckly schadenfreude over the “please show me the parts where I read like an irrational ideologue” part.

  31. The Climate racketeers have been caught with their pants down, now take them behind the woodshed for the coup de grâce take down!

  32. Taking a page from John Grisham’s The Firm. If (a) “double dipping” as Shukla might have done is fraud in the legal sense, (b) and Shukla sent via the US mail documents that were a party to that fraud, does it then follow that Shukla is liable for Mail Fraud? Just asking.

  33. Union of concerned scientists involved in this nonsense, someone please sue Nye oh that would be sweet.

    AGW not political huh ROFL

  34. Given they looked for lots of scientist signatures it is pretty obvious lots of scientists declined to sign their letter

    • Oh the irony. Shukla has clearly become an activist. He can say that he has never been involved in politics, but he most certainly has been (IPCC). It wasn’t long ago when he was admitting problems with climate models that would garner labeling of “skeptic” or “denier.” Chairman of a panel on climate modeling that concluded regional climate change model predictions were “laughable?”

      http://e360.yale.edu/feature/the_limits_of_climate_modeling/2028/

      “…Many in the modeling community are growing wary of such spurious certainty. Last year, a panel on climate modeling assembled by the UN’s World Climate Research Program under the chairmanship of Jagadish Shukla of the George Mason University at Calverton, Maryland, concluded that current models “have serious limitations in simulating regional features, for example rainfall, mid-latitude storms, organized tropical convection, ocean mixing, and ecosystem dynamics.”

      Regional projections, the panel said, “are sufficiently uncertain to compromise the goal of providing society with reliable predictions of regional climate change.” Many of the predictions were “laughable,” according to the panel. Concern is greatest about predicting climate in the tropics, including hurricane formation. This seriously undermines the credence that can be placed on a headline-grabbing prediction in May that the future might see fewer Atlantic hurricanes (albeit sometimes more intense)…”

      • I agree wholeheartedly. The problem for the models is the water cycle dominates, which is why all the warming of the past 150 years hasn’t have any detectable effect on water vapor.

        The IPCC and NASA believe that without an atmosphere the earth would be -19c. They claim the earth is 15c because of the GHGs in the atmosphere, but the atmosphere is the hydrological cycle, and that cycle prevents the earth cooking. Otherwise if water did not evaporate the earth would be uninhabitable because it would be cooked. The temp would be closer to 50c+

        Basically, add up all the heat in the oceans and atmosphere, and you have the heat the water cycle stores. This heat would otherwise be baking an arid rock floating in space.

        The claim the atmosphere adds about 33c to temp is patently false, and only true if you consider one element, GHGs, but leave out the water cycle

      • and of all that heat in the water cycle, how much does 1c change impact that? One look at water vapor trends shows, it doesn’t have any meaningful effect at all

      • We have an entire generation that has the world backwards.

        Progressive idiots think the atmosphere warms the earth when the reality is that the atmosphere cools it.

        I also read countless threads claiming cold objects heat warmer ones.

        Billions spent on an imaginary view of the world.

        All the scientific data supports the basic laws of thermodynamics and the fundamental gas laws, yet we have this farce of “climate science” persisting.

        P.T. Barnum has nothing on these guys.

  35. Pretty sure Jagadish Shukla is not the guy in the center, but the guy in the blue blazer.

  36. It’s not a political fight. It’s a political witch hunt. With a star chamber, Kangaroo Court and Inquisition tossed in.

  37. Reminds me of Sharon Stone: Women can fake orgasms but men can fake whole relationships.

    Who is telling the biggest and worse lies here? The scientists?

    Looks like a rearguard action by some worried politically motivated losers. They should be worried: the science is clear and incontrovertible.

      • Eh? The Royal Society, US National Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Physical Society, American Chemical Society, American Meteorological Society and every scientific institution and society on planet Earth VERSUS … dbstealey!

        Science advances one funeral at a time (Max Planck). You’ll make a worthwhile contribution yet, dbstealey!

      • “Eh? The Royal Society, US National Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Physical Society, American Chemical Society, American Meteorological Society and every scientific institution and society on planet Earth VERSUS … dbstealey!

        No, silly . . I’m with dbstealey ; )

      • Dennis Horne May 13, 2016 at 6:43 pm
        Science advances one funeral at a time (Max Planck). You’ll make a worthwhile contribution yet, dbstealey!

        Ah Dennis, as long as someone has a purpose to live for, they will live to a great age. As for dbstealey, I fear we will be blessed with his curmudgeon style for some time to come. As a matter of fact, I foresee him in the future undoing his breeches over a grave site with the stone bearing your name. Imagine that.

        michael

      • Yo denis~ explain to us how organizations on the list such as the American Association of Pediatricians have ANY climate qualifications.

      • Political statements one and all. None on that list has spent any time studying the actual data. Your appeal to authority, fallacious by itself, fails doubly.

      • @DennisHorne

        “Eh? The Royal Society, US National Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Physical Society, American Chemical Society, American Meteorological Society and every scientific institution and society on planet Earth VERSUS … dbstealey!”

        Well, there was a similar consensus VERSUS Alfred Wegener for about 50 years – but he was right in the end…

        And of course, dbstealey is not the only person who knows that a zeitgeisty and wrong ideology can corrupt a majority of people for some time, but not forever. Just think of the current collapse of the 99% consensus about “Saturated fat & cholesterol as reasons for heart disease”…
        http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/07/the-sugar-conspiracy-robert-lustig-john-yudkin

      • What is funniest to me is how our planet is a water planet and somehow the climate modelers can not even get water right. Than we are supposed to believe that they can do co2 correctly?

        Or that after years of getting it wrong that a sudden influx of organizations agreeing that suddenly they are correct despite showing zero actual skill?

        It’s the game of the lawyer all over again. They lose on facts, they lose at consensus and they lose at pounding the table. They are in one word: losers.

        Because successful people take on a problem and beat it. They win.

        global warming activists seem to try to make new records in wasting resources.

  38. What if Maibach claimed the cost of the breakfast as a work-related expense from his employer?

  39. Shukla and the others are amusing in their electronic toys:

    “sent from my iGlasses”

    “sent from my shoe phone”

    “sent from my iPhone”…

    It’s amazing what a simple grant allotment will pay for.

  40. The whole thing is a matter of opinion. In the US, because of the first amendment everyone is, or should entitled to their opinion, it should matter not if their opinion is right, wrong, or indifferent. It should not matter if their opinion is shared by 99.99% of people or 0.0000000001% of people. The first amendment protects all speech. In this case the government is trying to criminalize speech.
    But it is worse than that. it is an indisputable fact that no one knows what damage, if any, will be caused be CO2 in 50 to 100 years or more. There is no data at all from the future to prove or disprove the models.

    The tobacco case was way over reaching by the government, but a least that case was based on harm already allegedly done. This case is based on harm that might possibly happen in the future.

    • This case is based on harm…projected by computer models that have been wrong about everything…… that might possible happen in the future.

    • Tom Trevor makes a good point, “The tobacco case was way over reaching by the government, but a least that case was based on harm already allegedly done.”

      We often hear of all sorts of dreadful things that climate change has already caused, but a recent paper demonstrates how little climate change occurred between the start and end of the 20th century.

      Belda et al (2014) reconstructed the global Koppen-Trewartha climate classification map to show the climate regions of the world (except Antarctica) for two periods, 1901-1931 and 1975-2005, based on a 30 minute grid, average area about 2500 km2, (About 50,000 grid cells cover 135 million km2, the land area of the Earth except Antarctica.)

      My analysis of their paper revealed that between the two periods, only 8% of the cells changed climate type. When I plotted a scatter diagram of distributions for the two periods, I found there is little divergence from the straight line passing through the origin and with slope unity. R-squared is 99.5. In a branch of science not perverted by ideology this would indicate no significant climatic difference between the two periods, before and after fossil fuels began their modern rate of ascent.

      References:

      Belda, M., Holtanová, E., Halenka, T. and Kalvová, J., 2014. Climate classification revisited: from Köppen to Trewartha. Climate research, 59(1), pp.1-13.
      Paper: http://www.int-res.com/articles/cr_oa/c059p001.pdf

    • “…But it is worse than that. it is an indisputable fact that no one knows what damage, if any, will be caused be CO2 in 50 to 100 years or more. There is no data at all from the future to prove or disprove the models…”

      There is an immense amount of data from the past that CO2 levels could rise to many times their current levels without harm to Earth and it’s life.

      Every alarmist claim about alleged dangers of CO2 is sophistry. Zero evidence. Zero experimentation. Zero experience. Zero knowledge. Zero proper research.
      Instead the alarmists took what they considered the worst environments on Earth, then they constructed elaborate disaster scenarios; all based on limited but vivid imaginations. Their future projections are rife with weasel waffle words.

      Green house growers use CO2 well over 1000ppm without harm to plants or workers.

      The tobacco case was/is far over reaching in ramifications, regulations and citizen burdens. The question is how to reach fair’s fair?

      Twenty years ago, I despised cigarette smoke and most cheap cigars. Their secondhand smoke was irritating and left horrible odors on my suits and clothes; requiring prompt cleaning as I hate smelling like old ashtrays.

      It wasn’t hard to notice that quality cigars and most pipe smokers left the air fragrant and residual smells were not as offensive.

      Other than that, I really don’t care if people smoke. That is their choice and life. All I want is fresh air and clean surfaces so food and drink tastes good and my clothes don’t stink. Proper ventilation systems actually take care of most of those issues without difficulty. Even on airplanes, smoking should not be intrusive if the air is cleaned and recycled properly.
      First they required smokers to smoke in separate areas.
      Then they banned smokers to the outdoors.
      Now they’re forcing smokers to smoke away from buildings.

      Overreach is one word for it…

      • First they required smokers to smoke in separate areas.
        Then they banned smokers to the outdoors.
        Now they’re forcing smokers to smoke away from buildings.

        It’s always open season on smokers, they are a handy whipping boy.

    • Tom Trevor, May 13, 2016 at 5:49 pm: “The whole thing is a matter of opinion. In the US, because of the first amendment everyone is, or should [be] entitled to their opinion, it should matter not if their opinion is right, wrong, or indifferent. It should not matter if their opinion is shared by 99.99% of people or 0.0000000001% of people. The first amendment protects all speech. In this case the government is trying to criminalize speech.”

      That’s exactly what they are doing, trying to criminalize speech. The First Amendment will be what decides this case, not climate theory.

  41. Leftists have already proven they’re above the law as clearly shown in the Lois Lerner and Hillary Clinton FOIA/e-mail scandals.

    Any incriminating e-mails of CEI’s FOIA request will simply be: “lost”, “automatically purged from system as per IT protocols”, “determined to be of “personal” nature and deleted, lost due to “hard disc crash”, “misplaced”, “currently missing”, etc.

    Tyranny is the capricious application/interpretation of law, used as a tool to obtain tyrannical agendas…

    • You might be suprised just how easy “lost” data can be retrieved if there is the will to do so.

      • My son is an IT manager for one of the world’s largest banks.

        He explained to me the near impossibility to remove all e-mail records once they’ve been sent through numerous servers and to various people.

        He also said from what he’s read, it’s almost certain Hillary’s e-mail server was hacked from the start, so a number of our friends and enemies have copies of ALL of Hillary’s e-mails from day one, (both her “work” and “private”)…

      • “They” may have the emails, Samurai, but “we, the people” don’t have access to them.

  42. This is serious business, but I had to smile at this speech to text transcription, “…by text pair funded academics, lawn force meant officials..”

    Shows what happens when the user does not take the time to train the software adequately.

  43. Jeeze Louise… These “professors” seem to think they are reenacting the famous letter from Albert Einstein advising FDR about the possibility of a practical “atom bomb”….

    Just a wee bit full of themselves aren’t they… They cannot, after decades of taxpayer dollars to “play” with, convince the “jury” that CO2 is “guilty as charged” so they have to resort to letters to the POTUS….

    Sad really that all these folks can’t find something more useful to do with their careers, heck there are so many real problems to solve (poverty, lack of reliable energy for sub-Saharan Africa, clean water, etc., etc.). Heck, a big portion of the world still does not have flush toilets and all the health benefits they provide.

    I think these sorry folks could contribute more to the betterment of the human condition by volunteering to dig latrines in Africa instead of writing silly letters asking someone with more power then them to prosecute folks that won’t buy into their religion.

    Best part of the e-mail exchange so far is the “ring leader” complaining about “inequality”… This from a person that double dipped (and maybe even tripled dipped) at the “taxpayer buffet” and had the nerve to send some of his ill gotten gains back to India which everybody knows is one of the worlds biggest “carbon polluters”….

    If any of the authors of these sorry displays of “intelligence” embodied in these e-mails read this comment you should be ashamed of yourselves….

    Cheers, KevinK.

  44. I think the most telling revelation in the sample E-mails was J. Skula’s lament tying climate change to the larger “…issues of inequality and social justice”. There, in a nutshell, resides the key to understanding why the political left has found AGW theory so emotionally attractive. AGW is the perfect political tool for one-world-socialists who have tied their entire system of logic to the demonstrably false, bedrock assumption that economic inequality and social injustice are the root causes of every ill known to mankind. It provides a vehicle for their “end justifies the means” drive to substitute international mechanisms of wealth redistribution and social justice enforcement in the place of local and national mechanisms and enforcement systems historically in place.

    • Supporting social justice apparently allows for Shukla to violate state and federal laws, collecting funds from multiple tax funded sources for the same work, while enriching his wife, blood family and friends. It appears that all involved in his climate institute did the same thing.

  45. And all Mosher’s posturing about conspiracy paranoia, as if it weren’t substantiated enough by climategate…

    Yet it is a fools conspiracy. To ever believe as publicly funded workers and public servants the truth would not be known? Dumb.

    To ever believe that a public agency can simply rewrite temperature history without reconciliation. Dumb.

    To borrow a phrase from Leif, at some point dumb just becomes offensive.

    • Scientist should stick to their knitting, i.e. the evidence-based scientific method, and stay out of politics.

      • Exactly. Government policy concerning the environment or health shouldn’t be based on a scientific consensus. If only they’d listen to the geniuses at WUWT.

      • Mike

        Exactly. Government policy concerning the environment or health shouldn’t be based on a scientific consensus. If only they’d listen to the geniuses at WUWT.

        Should the government listen then only to its government-paid, self-selected, government-funded and government-granted “scientists” ? How many government-paid so-called “scientists” can you buy for 92 billion in research grants and CAGW funding, in return for “research” that generates 31 trillion in carbon-trading schemes and 1.3 trillion in new taxes to be distributed by government politicians and bureaucrats? You know, those same government-paid, self-interested, self-promoting bureaucrats funding the self-selected “scientists” ?

      • None of the signatories can claim to be experts on health and the environment.
        What are the health and environmental risks of the atmospheric concentrations of CO2?
        Whatever the risks, if any, the benefits of fossil fuel use over the past 150 years are incalculable but, as with smoking cigarettes, no-one is forced to use them.
        But they do, even those who campaign against the fossil fuel industries use them, usually far more than your average consumer.

  46. “scientific consensus”

    The most expensive oxymoron in human history. Well done Mike, for reminding us of this.

    …. got any data BTW, you know ….. that CO2 going from 280 ppm to 400 ppm has had any measurable effect on any global climate parameter (after 40 years of bullish!tting)?

    Your next post will contain none says this genius at WUWT.

    • Clearly a genius. A one degree of surface level temperature increase averaged across the globe across all the year, melting arctic ice, most glaciers retreating, tree lines going up, increases in sea level, increases in sea temperature, an increase in the recorded satellite temperature, a whole lotta ice cores and … grade school physics. Yep no evidence at all.

      Who you going to listen to, an overwhelming majority of people who’ve been properly trained and studied this stuff all their life, or a failed weather man and a bunch of libertarian nutters, most without a Science degree let alone a PhD behind them, who rant about government control, paying tax and conspiracies?

      Clearly genius.

      • i hope you stick around, mike… it’ll be loads of fun watching folks rip your [pruned]

      • meaningless junk.

        Such text is spewed by people who know nothing of climate science.

        And Mike, PhDs can be idiots like everyone else.

        What “evidence” are you talking about, you mention temperature increases ice cores ect, tell me how any of these support the core assumptions of AGW and you might as well tell me which core assumptions have already been falsified.

        All the stuff you mentioned is not evidence, it cannot be, will I explain to you poor old chap? Anything that can be explained by two different explanations cannot be considered explicit evidence for one hypothesis.

        Ice cores showed us CO2 is led by temperature btw and they also show Greenland heating up 8c in 30 years before man made CO2. That is fail for a start.

      • afonzarelli
        May 14, 2016 at 12:33 am

        i hope you stick around, mike… it’ll be loads of fun watching folks rip your stupid a**

        Pretty much lol, he has rehashed all of the warmer arguments that have been laughed at for some time now.
        Note not one jot of any actual argument in his post, just rambling about “things”, nothing specific, because he doesn’t know what he is talking about.

        reminds me of Mosher, that is clueless too

        These trolls cherry pick what they reply to, for fear of being exposed for the idiots they are.. too late, we know :D

      • Mike, Mike, Mike. You have not quite grasped this issue have you?

        Evidence for warming is NOT evidence that we did it by setting fire to stuff.

        If there were ANY evidence the first paper to publish it would become the most cited literature in, well, the literature. Overnight.

        Feel free to continue ‘believing’ the rent seeking, mendacious and greedy once respected institutions and their minions though. Whatever makes you ‘feel’ better. Not for you replicable, falsifiable hypotheses, oh, no. Much better to follow a hunch.

        Good little citizen. Have a bone.

      • Wow- you really handed my ass to me. Especially that well informed comment about CO2 increases following temperature increases. Shows you understand the literature really well.

        Love winding up middle aged male climate contrarians. They’re as stupid as antivaxxers and Trump supporters.

      • ‘Mike’,

        I challenge you to produce verifiable data showing that changes in CO2 are the cause of subsequent changes in temperature.

        I can easily show the opposite: that changes in CO2 are caused by changes in temperature.

        The ball’s in your court, mikey…

      • Yeah mikey, mann, gleick, attp, Hansen et al tend to get wound up pretty quick. Meanwhile the climate keeps doing what it has been doing for a billion years.

      • Mike
        May 14, 2016 at 2:18 am

        Wow- you really [pruned] to me

        [Watch your language, please. It isn’t needed to make your points here. .mod]

      • Anthony Watts

        That post was quoted, it was not my words, you missed the post it quoted btw ;)

        I dont post like that, obviously, if one reads my posts!

      • yet another clown that apparently has very little knowledge of past climate . would be interesting to know mikes explanation for origin of historical remnants of past forests and human artefacts emerging from ice and snow fields in recent times.

      • Mark, what i meant here is that i hope mike sticks around for a long while here at wuwt (as opposed to being “troll for a day”). The agw crowd can’t even come close to competing in the realm of ideas; the theory being filled with many a hole large enough to drive a hybrid car through. Mike IS an articulate fellow. He’ll make a great ambassador for the skeptic view point once we hand him his (you know whutt) on a platter…

    • Hey mikey, explain to us how there is a 3500-year-old tree line MUCH farther north in the Arctic than there is today. How in God’s name did the polar bears survive the temps that allowed That?

      • Same in Siberia. The Holocene maximum taiga treeline is much further north than the modern treeline, with preserved tree stumps littering the northern tundra.

        R

      • because polar bears are mostly born on land and they spend most of their life swimming, no ice conditions doesn’t hinder them, as long as they can catch food they are fine.

        If there is no ice, the seals come to land end of story.

    • “Your next post will contain none says this genius at WUWT”

      Game set and fkin match then Mike. Sorry for making you look so stupid with one post (i’m not really).

      …. Oh and for the record, Ph.D. in Organic Chemistry at age 23, 200 publications in peer-reviewed journals and so on and so forth ….

      Whereas you, you idiot, can’t even comprehend that the appeal to authority on here is as useful as a chocolate teapot.

  47. @ 601nan, nothing to laugh about I don’t know how this company got started and who’s money they used but there must be a lot of people that were shammed into buying the stock that now could have lost their pensions.

    • Yes, laugh at the fools who did not study what they were investing in. Solar power is highly depended on subsidies much like wind power and as such the second the subsidies start dropping the stocks go to zero is really no surprise to most.

      Recently California reduced subsidies for home-owners to install solar panels. So to give you a hint on the real world: what happened is that before this was announced all the politically connected removed their money from this field and sold it to suckers.

      The suckers hold onto the worthless stock and viola more corruption is bred while the honest remain poor.

      This is terrible perhaps, but it’s the system the politicians created so of course it’s going to work well for them. The illusion of a free market is quite real

    • Continuing to use fossil fuels in daily life while at the same time believing they will lead to catastrophic consequences must really mess with your head, it must be hell in there.

    • Ironically you believe CO2 starts fires that we then use CO2 to extinguish.

      or you believe CO2 causes warming that causes blizzards

      b
      a
      h
      a
      a

    • CO2 is very fussy. It doesn’t cause warming if you don’t believe in it.

      D. Horne doesn’t know how accurate his comment is.

      In other words: if you believe it causes warming… then it does.

      But no one can measure it. Belief can’t be measured.

  48. It is difficult to understand how naïve these people are as to world view, particularly Prof Maibach. These people should not be allowed to teach innocents who themselves might become teachers, for fear of propagating further cycles of gross incompetence within university cells inbred and isolated from real life. Nor should Maibach and some of the others ever be heard when important national policy is involved (unless, in case of warfare, one seeks a propaganda creator. \sarc off).

    Several times as I have followed this over the months, a big alarm bell has rung, reminding of the urgent need to actually work out what some of academia is trying to accomplish, being supposedly erudite and didactic for the nation, when actually of such narrow outlook that there is danger of misinformation. It is not a matter of politics here, it is a matter of the transfer of ignorance under a false banner of authority and academic knowledge.

    It goes beyond the main players here. In a smallish top academic circle like GMU has, those more senior than these players have a written duty to manage them, to ensure that public funds are spent lawfully. In a case like this, the responsible Head, who knows who he is, must tender his resignation – as a gentleman would.

    Senior people from the private sector would be justified to simply raise their arms in despair and yell WTF? It is so unbelievable, so disappointing a story, scarcely above what lads do at Scout camps.
    Geoff.

  49. OMG!!!! “Use language that will resonate with conservative values like “accountability.” That pretty much says it all. These people are despicable manipulators of the worst kind. These e-mails should trigger an EEOC investigation as to why there are so few conservatives teaching at our tax payer funded universities. Liberals have clearly not served our Nation well dominating our education system and bullying conservatives out of the system. One nice thing is that the Feds are looking into Hollywood for their hiring practices. Liberals are starting to eat their own.

    Hollywood Studios Targeted by Feds in Gender Bias Investigation
    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/05/13/hollywood-studios-targeted-by-feds-in-gender-bias-investigation.html

    • Ed’s think is social marketing. Using media to change people’s behavior. It’s in his resume.

      From day one a propaganda campaign (PR campaign) was concocted, it had nothing to do with any actual evidence Exxon might have, they make that clear in the emails “cant prove Exxon caused damage” because obviously you have to prove AGW in court, which unfortunately for them is irrelevant, they from day one wanted to use the RICO actions to lend authority to their propaganda, and give believers something to latch on to when faced with information they cannot process due to cognitive dissonance, ergo they blame oil when they have no answer or are tasked with doing even the most rudimentary research.

      People like Ed know this, it’s social engineering

  50. Of course the other way to read the graph is that the USA has lurched rightwards, but intelligent people have remained in the centre/left.

    • Tell that to the Liberal professors who are now terrified of liberal students.
      “I’m a liberal professor and my liberal students terrify me”
      http://www.vox.com/2015/6/3/8706323/college-professor-afraid

      The left give us wonderful things, like social justice brainwashing, advocacy groups telling us what to do and say, and safe spaces, racial division, division in society, brainwashing kids is even not off limits, like the church “get them while they are young” and dishonest aggressive completely intolerant authoritarian fight against free speech, bad economics and poor education (common core) and a completely dishonest liberal media. (all the high profile college “rape cases” were in fact not true)

      Who is responsible for bringing hoards of scumbags (and a minority of genuine refugees) to Europe? Lefties. They are destroying the culture of European countries and dividing society and putting citizens at risk.

      yeah the left has a lot to answer for.

      You are obviously think like a m0r0n

    • Of course the other way to read the graph is that the USA has lurched rightwards, but intelligent people have remained in the centre/left.

      Intelligent people have remained “center/left?” Like those Einsteins that offer solutions to our greatest problems like terrorism, the debt, affordable education, quality healthcare? No, the left comes up with genius ideas like open rest rooms and climate change, and it makes heroes out of common thugs killed in the act of committing violent crimes.

    • oh and the left gave us fainting couch and 3rd wave feminists who demand anyone that disagrees should be silenced

    • Mike,

      How do you glean anything about the US citizenry from a graph of the politics of university professors over the past quarter century?

  51. Intimidation by politically active “professors” is nothing new. This documentary has numerous examples of how professors work to silence the debate. Here is one clip.

    • CO2 Mike is just a catchphrase bot I think. The posts are alarmist cliches. I do wonder if this is not an evolution of the Twitterbot Josh cartooned

      • Quite the ranter aren’t you Mark? Bet it’s gonna really irk you when Hillary gets in for the next 8 years as the country takes a big fat lurch to the left. Hell, the way things are going, not only will we win the senate, we might also pick up the house too and a few more states to boot. That plus a supreme court majority, we can look forward to 8 long years of strengthened environmental protections, same-sex marriage, equal pay for women, transgender rights and medicare for one and all. I for one am positively drooling about all the freebies me and my left wing buddies are going to get thanks to your taxes! (I’m of course assuming you have a job). Thanks for helping make it happen! It’s gonna be great!

      • Mike
        May 14, 2016 at 6:30 am

        Well lets look at what you said, my commentary after the “-”

        “Quite the ranter aren’t you Mark?” – Dont inject your own obvious emotional state into my argument.

        “Bet it’s gonna really irk you when Hillary gets in for the next 8 years as the country takes a big fat lurch to the left.” – Again you bring up emotions, this is quite interesting, you are obviously emotionally motivated here.

        “Hell, the way things are going, not only will we win the senate, we might also pick up the house too and a few more states to boot. That plus a supreme court majority, we can look forward to 8 long years of strengthened environmental protections, same-sex marriage, equal pay for women, transgender rights and medicare for one and all. I for one am positively drooling about all the freebies me and my left wing buddies are going to get thanks to your taxes! (I’m of course assuming you have a job). Thanks for helping make it happen! It’s gonna be great!” –

        First of all ^^ is a rant. Secondly I am not American, and I am not political nor religious. Thirdly, you really dont know anything about the Clinton family do you? If you did you would not be happy. Plus she will guarantee more wars. I fail to see how 300 million of your countrymen and women suffering at the hands of that criminal fills you with glee.

        Then you went with “if you have a job” bahahhaha, such emotion, it makes you feel better to think I have no job does it? Again mildly interesting Mike me auld flower.

        The best bit about your rant is you make your position clear, it’s ideological, political, and has nothing to do with science

        You kind of exposed yourself there, essentially this is the stuff of Shukla’s emails.
        You need to get yourself to a leg shop mate, you aint got a leg to stand on

      • Mark May 14, 2016 at 3:53 am
        CO2 Mike is just a catchphrase bot I think

        Hi Mark, you maybe right, but after looking at all his posts I think he was mainly trying to pull people off topic, and keep them responding to his barbs.

        sometimes its best to just ignore such trolls.

        michael

      • re: Mike @ 6:30 am:

        Same-sex marriage has already been pushed through by the Supreme Court. Women already receive equal pay, that particular myth has been debunked so many times it is embarrassing that anyone still tries to make that claim. How many people do you know who are on Medicare and like it? When you refer to strengthened environmental protections, are you saying that the EPA is going to go after themselves for the Gold King Mine disaster?

        Personally, I use the equal pay myth as a litmus test: I do not take anyone who makes that claim seriously, and I distrust anything they say. Either they are so careless that they do not bother checking the accuracy of such statements (and live under a rock) or they are deliberately lying. Neither explanation reflects well on anyone.

        Also, I find it sad that you support a woman who is morally guilty of four murders and who laughed about getting a child rapist (who she knew was guilty) acquitted. Accusing the majority of voters of being willing to support such a person is insulting, though sadly it is likely accurate.

      • Mike you essentially outed yourself as in ideological nut with your political rant.

        I am not American, I am not political and not religious.

        Nice to see you are all about the politics tho.. explains much in fact.

      • Mike
        May 14, 2016 at 6:30 am

        Quite the ranter aren’t you Mark? Bet it’s gonna really irk you when Hillary gets in for the next 8 years as the country takes a big fat lurch to the left. Hell, the way things are going, not only will we win the senate, we might also pick up the house too and a few more states to boot. That plus a supreme court majority, we can look forward to 8 long years of strengthened environmental protections, same-sex marriage, equal pay for women, transgender rights and medicare for one and all. I for one am positively drooling about all the freebies me and my left wing buddies are going to get thanks to your taxes! (I’m of course assuming you have a job). Thanks for helping make it happen! It’s gonna be great!
        ________

        And that is choc full of teenage angst, or when you watch a movie and urge the perceived good guy on, with a tear in your eye :p

        Are you 15?

  52. Shukla is toast. First, Rep Smith confirms the double dipping and violation of GMU moonlighting rules, and refers to the NSF Inspector General for appropriate legal action, which can include incarceration and restitution. Now he’s caught out lying concerning FOIA. The emails will build a prima facie 42USC1985 civil action against all of the RICO 20.

    “Accuse Others of What You Are Guilty” Saul Alynski. Their tactics are so classic left win propaganda. It was only a matter of time, and this was such an act of desperation. This “Open Restroom” campaign by Obama has people fleeing the Left like I’ve never seen. Finally people are waking up to what we have in the White House. Coal miners lost their jobs voting for this guy, and all they got was confusion as to what rest room to use, and a really messed up healthcare system whose funding has been found to be unconstitutional.

    It was only a matter of time before the Right won this issue. Classic Right Wing Propaganda.
    Proverbs 28:1 The wicked flee though no one pursues, but the righteous are as bold as a lion.

  53. Brandon is right that there is a gap.
    The statement that GMU said there were no records in 2015 needs backing up.
    Where are the documents in which they said this?

  54. Help may be on its way. Trump knows how to tap into people’s anger, and he knows what is important to conservatives. Best of all, women are horrified by this “open restroom” campaign. Liberals are finally being forced to live by the rules that they promote and it is really waking people up. Up until Obama, everything the liberals did always were directed at conservatives. Now liberals are the targets. Women voted for Obama and now they are being asked told to welcome men into their rest rooms. The Feds are looking into the hiring practices of Hollywood. Obama is a dream come true for Conservatives, just like Jimmy Carter was a dear come true for Reagan.

    Trump taps climate change skeptic as energy adviser, pushes back on taxes
    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-idUSKCN0Y41PM

  55. So many apolitical people have become political with this issue. Liberal Fathers and Mothers now have to face the fear of teenage boys being allowed into girl’s locker rooms simply because the claim to be identifying themselves with the female gender.

    Obama to Public Schools: Allow Transgender Students Access to Bathrooms

    The Obama administration today will call on public school districts nationwide to allow transgender students to use the bathroom that matches their gender identity, sources told ABC News.

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/obama-administration-public-schools-transgender-students-access-bathrooms/story?id=39081956

    • As I understand it this was a non issue until some conservatives passed a law making it an issue. Otherwise know as a self goal, just like Shukla.

      • It’s not a non issue, I dont want a chemically and or surgically neutered mentally ill man in a toilet when my daughter is in there.

      • I’m not so concerned about the guy who is so committed that he’s lost his junk. The problem is the solution the progressives are putting forth, opening the door so wide that anyone can come in. The Charlotte law that the state of NC was responding to protected not only ‘gender identity’ but also ‘gender expression’. Any male, transgendered or not, who expressed himself as a woman had to be allowed to ‘fully enjoy’ the ‘full facilities’ any privately owned public accommodation, which would include not only restrooms but also locker rooms and showers. If I showed up in a dress, I could not be barred from using the women’s facilities. Obama’s public school decree states the only documentation needed is a note from the parents. Schools are barred from asking for any medical records. Again, opens the door for abuse.

        The Charlotte law followed other progressive ruling, such as that by the Human Rights Commission of the state of Washington. This was not an issue until the left made it so, causing the right to react to overreach.

      • If I identify as a woman can I go hang out in women’s toilets? How far do I need to go to be considered as “identifying as a woman”?

      • ..You only have say ” You FEEL like a women” today to have access to your daughters bathroom ! Liberalism is a mental disease that must be eradicated !

      • ECB: To believe that, you have to believe that Obama Admin reg to every public school in US this past week was only started AFTER NC passed a law in March 2016. You believe it only started in March?

      • Mark, Mark, Mark listen closely. This is a phony, phony-socialist BS issue, designed to to draw in Republicans so they can prove how nice they are by letting chicks with dicks p!ss in a lady’s toilet.

        Unfortunately, I think that you and the Republicans will fall for this amazingly stupid non-issue, wedge issue AGAIN. How is it possible? Concentrate on the economy, jobs and what normal people do, not what these freak losers can dream up as phony issues.

  56. Clinton update from The Daily Bail:

    CNN Won’t Discuss Bill Clinton’s ‘Energizer’ Mistress

    http://dailybail.com/home/cnn-wont-discuss-bill-clintons-energizer-mistress.html

    Alesci On Clinton Foundation Charity Scandal

    The Clinton Foundation is denying a Wall Street Journal report that CGI steered money to a for-profit company partly owned by Clinton friends and Democratic donors. One of those friends was Bill Clinton’s mistress. See her photo here.

    As a former CNN employee, I can confirm that the Hillary Protection Program is real, and it’s standard brainwashing procedure at CNN and virtually every other national media outlet. The Clinton story was not mentioned on the nightly news this evening by any of the three networks. It was censored completely — an orchestrated blackout to keep viewers from hearing the truth about the Clintons.

  57. These climate people need to understand that people like me are not falling for their climate fairy tales because some corporation is pushing us to believe otherwise. I don’t believe their climate change fairy tales because I go out side year around and see the same old spring, summer, fall and winter with the same old unpredictable weather as there has been the last 48 years. Like every other religion that exists out there, they can take theirs and shove it where the sun don’t shine.

    • . Like every other religion that exists out there, they can take theirs and shove it where the sun don’t shine.

      I agree. CAGW is just more faith-based rubbish that should be consigned to the round filing cabinet labelled “religion”.

  58. This is why we need Trump in the office… he’s not the world’s smartest guy, not the best leader I could imagine.. pretty much a buffoon from the overly aggressive real estate market (those guys are really nasty) but his natural instincts are off the charts in the art of defeating the crazy leftist agenda.

  59. One of the best explanations of “Climate Change” in simpleton speak !! Even I understood it !! LOL

  60. It’s ironic. Every time (way too many) I see a left-of-center individual play an empire-building game that allows you to set your own tax rate, they all get it right every time. Not one percentage point too high, not one percentage point too low. Intelligent numerical analysis.

    Then when they get out in the real world it’s as if they never gave any of those factors a second thought. Sheesh. They can’t be real unless they are playing a game — in which venue they are the epitome of wisdom and common sense. (Yes, I mean you, Matumbah! You too, Winston X. Et alia.)

    There’s an old saying, “Experience keeps a dear school, but a fool will learn in no other.” But there seems to be a resistance to learning going on here. Or at least a misplacement. They have learned little. And a lot of what they have learned appears to be incorrect.

    • ..You must play ” Civilization” or some such online game !! Me, I’m poor, so I play the cheap downloaded version !! Haven’t lost yet even at the Expert level !

      • and what have you done with the lefties in your “civilisation” Marcus.. :p Breaking rocks at Leavenworth?

        :D

  61. Professor Kirke famously asked, What are they teaching in these schools?” This was in 1950. The book was set around 1940 and the author was a conservative (U.S. definition).

    I wonder what the prof would be saying now? Just thinkin’.

  62. The most absurd thing of all is that we have been experiencing the best weather and climate for life on this planet since the Medieval Warm Period, 1000 years ago………..that was warmer than this in many places.

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v532/n7599/full/nature17441.html

    “Here we show that in the United States from 1974 to 2013, the weather conditions experienced by the vast majority of the population improved. Using previous research on how weather affects local population growth8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 to develop an index of people’s weather preferences, we find that 80% of Americans live in counties that are experiencing more pleasant weather than they did four decades ago.”

    Planet earth is greening up:

    http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36130346

    Warming the higher latitudes most, has decreased the meridional temperature gradient and decreased many measures of extreme weather. As an independent operational meteorologist the past 34 years, that has been observing global weather on a daily basis, I can say that these people are stark raving delusional.

    The broken model projections do show these bad things happening of course, but in reality, so far the increase in CO2 from burning fossil fuels has been almost entirely beneficial to life based on observations/empirical evidence.

  63. “Suggest ways of incorporating language that resonate with conservative values, such as accountability.”

    That quote highlights the complete and utter moral bankruptcy of the progressive left, that quote highlights how progressives mock values such as “accountability.” It also demonstrates how progressives employed by universities show no fear of discussion their moral bankruptcy with others. It exposes a culture of absolute corruption and moral bankruptcy. We allow people that mock accountability to educate our youth. We use tax payer dollars to fund the future destruction of American by corrupt and morally bankrupt educators. Accountability is exactly what is needed for our Universities. Tax payers should not be paying those who work to undermine America.

    • ..Liberals have no morals or any idea about ethics..They believe the “End Justifies The Means”, no matter what the cost in Human lives ! Because they know whats best …for them !

    • Very well said – it´s amazing to see how values and language are being misused and getting corrupted. “It can´t happen here” is always wrong – actions to silence opponents happens everywhere. Who would have thought that Universities, once the bastions of free thought, are now heading the fight against free thought. Parents have to start being aware of where they send their kids.
      Appalling.

  64. There is an orchestrated campaign by clever men trying to stop the truth being heard: Substantial emissions of CO2 are altering the climate. At this rate coastal cities will be flooded.

    If you don’t believe that you’ve been conned.

    • ye sure, that is why al gore got into beach side property . anyone basing any argument relating to sea level rise is a simpleton. look at the physical data and you will stop wetting your panties over it.

    • [snip – rant multiple policy violations, assigned to permanent bit bucket -Anthony]

      • Wow, I think you just calloused the ends of your fingers from banging on the keys so HARD. But we do appreciate it!

        Fun to read, a bit long but still fun.

      • http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/feb/13/dana-perino/fox-news-host-climate-scientists-fabricated-temper/
        “The net effect of adjustments is to actually reduce the amount of global warming we’ve observed since 1880 by about 20 percent,” Hausfather said. “Folks skeptical of temperature adjustments are welcome not to use them if they’d like, but you end up with more global warming, not less.”

        I’ll try again. The temperatures are measured!

        Discuss it with your therapist.

      • Dennis, Agw is supposed to only discernible post 1950 (according to the conjecture). one of tricks of the “adjustments” is to dampen down the 1930/40’s warm spell, and reduce the warming rate 1880 to 1940 . I think you need to get off of those political brainwashing sites and maybe do a little real research because It’s you that’s being played

    • You talking to your mirror?
      Or deep sarcasm?
      The truth will out, as our poor climate communicators keep finding out.
      Tis hard to “believe ” the message from men who insist lying is a message enhancing meme.

    • Yes, according to the top Warmists of the 1960’s the world would experience 10 feet of sea level rise by the year 2000, followed by an additional 200 feet of sea level rise by 2200 (+1 foot per year). “At this rate” coastal cities are already flooded.

      If that’s too far back for you, in 2004, the Pentagon warned GW Bush “that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a ‘Siberian’ climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.”

      Today’s warmists have backtracked so far that now the “nightmare scenario” is that by the year 2100 sea level rise will go from 3 mm/year (steady for the last 150+ years, meaning CO2 has nothing to do with it) to 7 mm/year. SEVEN MILLIMETERS. ALMOST 1/3 of an inch.

      If you think major coastal cities can’t cope with anywhere from 1/10 to 1/3 of an inch of rise per year, you don’t have much regard for humanity, and even citing it as one of the evidences everyone should agree upon is actually evidence of how much you yourself have been “conned”.

    • Horne says:

      Substantial emissions of CO2 are altering the climate.

      Another baseless assertion by the guy who can’t ever produce a measurement to support his beliefs.

  65. Are the “fossil fuel” companies , like Exxon, responsible for the CO2 my car emits,
    after I bought it? They aren’t burning it, I am.

  66. Mike, May 14, 2016 at 2:18 am wrote: “Wow- you really handed my ass to me. Especially that well informed comment about CO2 increases following temperature increases. Shows you understand the literature really well.

    Love winding up middle aged male climate contrarians. They’re as stupid as antivaxxers and Trump supporters.”

    Yeah, we will see who ends up looking stupid or not.

    As for “winding up middle aged male climate contrarians”, I think *they* probably look at it as entertainment.

  67. Reading through these I have to conclude that these persons actually have no idea as to what constitutes due diligence or that they are amazingly sloppy academics or have an inability to understand written text or something else as bad.

    As an example: On Sept 29th, 2015 at 3:36 pm Edward Maibach was responding to Elizabeth Woodley’s email about the FOIA. She had explicitly requested materials related to
    “2) approvals of the appropriate collegiate dean or institute director for Prof.
    Maibach to use university facilities, equipment,
    supplies or computer time in their consulting”

    He responds that it is ONLY his laptop he uses, (implying that that is so insignificant this small piece of equipment must then somehow be exempt from the requests!)

    So the specific request doesn’t apply to HIS equipment provided by GMU because…..????

    He ends his email with “Is this sufficient?””

    I did not search for a response from her but since they replied overall that there were no responsive documents ….

    LASTLY, he has the gaul to say they are trying to hurt him and Shulka in response to them encouraging someone to pick up a weapon (RICO) and assault these people and they are aghast! surprised! that they would fight back! OMG. How simple minded.

  68. I think that farmers should sue these oil companies. Exon knew that the increase in CO2 would cause crop yields to explode upwards via the law on photosynthesis.

    Now, at harvest, many producers don’t have room in their bins for the massive crops being produced………..Exon should pay for new bins to store the bumper crops (-:

    • Paul Ehrlich is butt-hurt that with all the food that’s being produced and delivered to market, millions of people aren’t starving as he predicted. We need to cut back on all this technology.

  69. Well done for all the hard work in getting this far and exposing the lies and machinations of these people. It reminds me of this line from Sir Walter Scott’s poem.

    “Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive”

    They are now finding how tangled in it they are.

    James Bull

  70. The left-leaning media continues to misrepresent and soft-peddle the reasons why Lois Lerner, Hillary, Lisa Jackson (aka Richard Windsor) of the EPA, and now these clowns, use private e-mail accounts to conduct official public business. It’s NOT about convenience, it’s not about privacy, mobile. It’s about controlling the information that they do NOT own, and about skirting FOI and other laws. They want the ability to evade responsibility for their official communications, yet they want the power and credibility of their public offices.

    When I hear about a bureaucrat or scientist using a secondary e-mail to communicate official business, this pretty much disqualifies them as credible sources, and brands them as disingenuous propagandists.

  71. I was informed today that my energy costs will increase 15% this year because of the green policy of my government. Anyhow – I just donated 100 dollars to CEI for their continued effort to provide what the United States government is unable to provide to the American people. And I´m not an United States citizen.
    Totally irrational? Maybe – or maybe not! Do the same:
    https://donatenow.networkforgood.org/cei

  72. Always struck me that they were playing with fire by playing the RICO card on their opponents when THEY fitted RICO far more accurately. The hunter is now the hunted. Deservedly. Sh1t just got real.

    • Portion of the e-mail dated June 31, 2015 from Peter Frumhoff to Edward Malibach:

      “As you know, deception/disinformation itself isn’t a basis for criminal prosecution under RICO.”

      I can imagine the basis for that “as you know”, and the discussions that they have had about how far THEY can go.

  73. People who set traps for others often fall into them themselves. When will we learn?

    “..the wicked were ensnared by their own actions.”
    —Psalms 9:16

  74. A little late in this, but besides lack of provable damages, I think their RICO case against Exxon, et al, has two other major problems. The first is HOW did the oil companies sway public opinion? As we have witnessed, the main stream media has done a fine job muzzling those who do not agree with man made climate catastrophe. Ask the average man on the street why he does not agree with “the consensus”, and only a few will be able to quote ANY source for his skepticism, just that the climate’s always changing and he doesn’t think man can change it. So just how has Exxon had any influence on their customers?

    The big issue, though, is motivation. They were motivated to protect their revenue? Is there any reasonable belief that anything would change if Exxon aggressively URGED everyone to stop using gasoline? What is the alternative? The very limited-use electric vehicles on the market? How many people would switch to an alternative fuel vehicle if they knew with 100% certainty that it would prevent a climate disaster in 100 years? HAVE THE CLIMATE SCIENTISTS CHANGED THEIR OWN LIFESTYLES?? (Won’t even mention Gore). If everybody started using electric cars, it might hurt the revenues of oil companies, but certainly not fatally. First, they are energy companies. They would take on a larger presence in the alternative fuel industry, or in electric generation and distribution (with everyone driving EVs, the entire grid would need reinforcement). Secondly, just what fuels will be used for jets, freighters, trains, and tractor trailers? What about farming and construction equipment? They will still use oil-derived products for many decades. Finally, what about the hundreds of oil-based products, from fertilizers to medicines (and the plastic parts in those EVs!)? They, too, would still be desired. So, in all honesty, oil companies had little to fear concerning climate change, and I’m sure they realized it. They know we have a choice: use oil, or end civilization as we know it. So why should they engage in a conspiracy to ‘hide the incline’? Just ask the jury, would you lower your standard of living, if you knew with certainty that not doing so would create problems a hundred years from now? No one needed con people to stop them from boycotting or making oil products illegal. It was never going to happen.

  75. Well, I had a long, quite brilliant comment, that totally disappeared when I hit the post button. The gist of it was, does anyone really think Exxon, et al, could influence people on their use of oil products? If they announced using oil was going to destroy the world in a hundred years, how many would trade in their cars for EVs? Ground airplanes? Stop freighters carrying international merchandise? Stop rail traffic? Prohibit construction and farming equipment fueled by oil products? Exxon, et al, didn’t need a conspiracy to ‘hide the incline,’ and I’m sure Exxon recognized that. Their business simply is not seriously endangered by a theoretical climate change a hundred years from now, regardless of how convinced people may be of such a future climate change. People are not going to end civilization as we know it and live a life of deprivation for ANY reason.

    The questions I would ask those ‘scientists’ pushing the RICO suit would be: do you believe we are changing the climate by our use of oil? Do you think we are headed for a climate disaster? What car do you drive? When is the last time you have flown? Have your actions been influenced by Exxon? Have you any evidence that anyone has been influenced by anything Exxon has done? So how has anyone been damaged?

    • (Well, sometimes a comment gets sent into comment “purgatory” till a mod sets it free, ’cause the system gets “triggered” . . apparently it’s an SJW system ; )

      “How many people would switch to an alternative fuel vehicle if they knew with 100% certainty that it would prevent a climate disaster in 100 years? HAVE THE CLIMATE SCIENTISTS CHANGED THEIR OWN LIFESTYLES?? (Won’t even mention Gore).”

      A very strong logical point, though the term ‘knew’ sort of obscures it a bit, it seems to me. I suggest ‘believed’ would keep the point sharper, since that is of course what the “consensus” claim implies . . I don’t believe most “climate scientists” (or any other kind) truly believe, but rather that many rationalize considering it possible, into considering probable, into very likely, into believe . . rather than face criticism for not clearly seeing the emperor’s spiffy new duds ; )

  76. I find the delusion of his enemies colluding with “well funded” groups to oppose the RICO action interesting.

  77. I don’t know if this has been covered, but it is a felony for any government official to act to deprive one of your rights by falsely claiming you are doing something criminal. 18 USC para 242 “Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law”

  78. Notice how we don’t get comments here any more in which someone or another moans “why don’t you just talk about science? Why do you talk about politics?”

    This entire issue has been nothing BUT politics from the very beginning. This attempt to criminalize all dissent was ALWAYS the warmist’s goal, right from the very start.

    • Eh? Thousands of scientists getting together to bluff you:magic. Jolly gosh, you’ve seen right through them!

      P.S. The planet is warming and the ice is melting. More magic from the scientists…

      • Horne, you lost the ‘consensus’ argument a long time ago. Your (un-named) “thousands of scientists” are trumped by tens of thousands of scientific skeptics, all with degrees in the hard sciences. And every one of them is named.

        Keep digging. I’ll keep reminding you of how small your contingent really is.

      • Since 1980 more than 12 million students have graduated with a Bachelor of Science degree. To claim that tens of thousands, or less than .03% of them, is a meaningful number in any way seems a silly claim.

  79. YOU FAILED. AGAIN.

    Dennis Horne
    May 14, 2016 at 11:24 pm

    I’ll try again. The temperatures are measured!

    • Yes, failed to get through to you again. Temperatures are MEASURED.

      What was your question again? Gas … thermodynamics … calculating something … irrelevant …

      Oh, never mind.

      • In the Delingpole thread Horne posts about “the difficulty of measurement, not surprising giving the complexity.”

        But now he says it’s very simple: “Temperatures are MEASURED.”

        Horne is just another “Say Anything” troller, contradicting himself when it’s convenient.

      • But, of course, for the most part, they are NOT measured – they are GUESSED.
        Hansen was guessing temperatures at distances up to 1200km away from any measurements.
        Schmitt just ignores real temperature measurements and uses “estimates” instead.
        BEST can tell you temperatures 100 years prior to the thermometer being installed.
        And so on.

      • okay, but that still does not explain the record breaking 2016 warmth posted by both UAH and RSS.

      • What explains the warmth is ENSO, the El Niño Southern Oscillator, combined with “The Blob” in the north central Pacific. At this point, ENSO is cycling into La Niña.

      • But why is each El Nino (and La Nina) warmer than the ones before it? Your reply does not explain why they are record breaking warm temps now in 2016?

  80. dbstealey. I didn’t say the measurements were simple, I said the temperatures were measured.

    Sorry for the confusion. I assumed you could read simple English.

  81. Anthony, you cannot be thanked enough. The collection of hard scientists, dreamers, realists, jokers, punsters, and (mostly) combinations of the above that can be read and seen in the above comments is a testament to why your site is so consistently highly rated. I’m a professional engineer, and cannot over-state the amount of information from outside my field that I have learned here. I was sceptical of CAGW because of a professional knowledge of geology, and the variations of global climate in the past that have lead to current coal seams. I have learned at least 2 years worth of university level information in reading posts and the subsequent discussions. Wow.

    Thank you, sir.

    The gathering place you have created should serve as a light to future generations. Though I suspect the two of us would disagree on a lot of public policy (and political) items, I have felt welcome here though I am one of many who rarely adds to the discussion. The long-suffering moderators must have full hands (and seldom enough the full glasses that would make the job easier) keeping the discussion civil, (mostly) on-point, and free flowing. When I saw the “Connections” columns and TV shows I imagined that places like your website are where ideas come to mingle and breed. I can only imagine where this will lead us in 20 to 2000 years. I think that there is too much total knowledge now for a proper polymath. But a place where erstwhile jacks-of-all-trades can learn from masters? Priceless.

    God bless you, sir.

    • Here is a good first course for engineers. Free. University.

      [Link DELETED. Any “course” that denigrates skeptics of catastrophic AGW with the pejorative “climate change deniers” in the title is propaganda. It isn’t science. -mod]

      • Dennis,

        I did not see a single engineer in the faculty list. This is very odd, since you suggest that this is a course for engineers.

        The course description’s lead paragraph spoke of a 97% consensus of scientists. Whenever I read this, my first thought is that no one involved in this is a scientist, since consensus means absolutely nothing in science. Scientific theories are proven by collection and unbiased analyses of experimental data which can be replicated by anyone with a desire to do so.

        Whatever scientists (or anyone else) believes without proof is irrelevant. If consensus “proved” anything, then the sun would be revolving around a flat earth that is 4,500 years old. These were consensus opinions in the past. Each was proved to be false, not once, but many times until the consensus was finally changed to accept scientific proof. More recently, the consensus was against Albert Einstein, Louis Pasteur, Alfred Wegener (plate tectonics), Girolamo Fracastoro (germ theory) and many, many others who were responsible for what we now know to be scientific breakthroughs.

      • Well then Dennis, since you mention introductory courses, here’s a great ~1 minute course by Richard Feynman on when a scientific hypothesis is “wrong”. That determination has nothing to do with “on authority” claims such as Royal Decrees and Theological Interpretations, or with any simple Dogmatic pronouncement about reality. And the determination has nothing to do with “Consensus” – because the basic principles of empirical science were developed during the Enlightenment to specifically avoid all other competitors in the determination of what is real. Any verbiage that results solely from Consensus does not become scientifically meaningful per se. It must still be tested against empirical reality by the Enlightenment’s science. Thus, it must also be potentially falsifiable in principle by empirical reality. It doesn’t and can’t prove itself.

        In the Enlightenment’s Science, only the Earth’s own empirical reality – as validly measured technically and within meaningful limits – counts toward the always-unfinished, and always-subject-to-revision process of the Enlightenment science’s objective method of determining what’s real. Merely proclaimed, acclaimed, “repeated everywhere!” ad nauseam, voted-upon or otherwise “found to be agreed upon or ‘accepted’ verbiage” does not count. And simple Pre-Enlightenment ad hominems or ad hoc punishments against scientists, as alleged proxies against the soundness of their science are only just that, logical fallacies.

        http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=richard+feynman+scientific+method&view=detail&mid=3E42F83570A3E8D106643E42F83570A3E8D10664&FORM=VIRE

        In other words, the predictions made from a “Law” or hypothesis are then compared against empirical reality by a laboratory experiment producing its results, or otherwise by an experiment using the Earth’s “nature” and our ~”experience or observation” of it in its method and the Earth’s subsequent nature as its results, which are then compared to what the hypothesis predicted.

        The latter non-laboratory method is what is taking place in regard to the hypotheses involved with “mainstream” Climate Science’s Catastrophic CO2-Climate Change. What its hypotheses predict about the Earth’s “mean” temperature – allegedly it is increasing in a certain way and specifically as a result of increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations, along with the allegedly catastrophic results of this increase in temperature [regardless of its cause] are compared to the Earth’s “nature” as defined by ongoing measureable, observational results on the Earth, including their effects on the Earth and its inhabitants.

        What this method has found empirically, Dennis, is that the hypotheses involved with Catastrophic CO2-Climate Change are “wrong” because their own stated predictions are [100%] wrong. Its hypotheses are therefore Scientifically Falsified – according to the self-evident rule that a scientific hypothesis claiming or predicting an empirical result must be in principle falsifiable by empirical observation. Otherwise it doesn’t assert anything of empirical, scientific value to begin with, because it is compatible or consistent with everything that subsequently happens to happen in empirical reality, and thus it asserts nothing about what empirical reality will be except for that triviality. Barking like a dog would be just as good. Moreover, the Catastrophic CO2-Climate Change hypotheses can’t even replicate or reproduce the record of what has already happened in the past climate by employing “mainstream” Climate Science’s own Models. It and they are not “real”.

        It’s up to those who still want to claim an empirical role for currently increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations as a significant cause for climate change to try to find out why their hypotheses are completely wrong and to prove any of their modified beliefs or conjectures by making predictions which prove to be empirically correct – such that perhaps only one or maybe two out of many others suggested as CO2-specific are not wrong? At least that would be a much better start in heeling to the principles of the Enlightenment’s science than they’ve made up to now, since they haven’t made any correct predictions yet. Not one!

        And certainly, the poorly functioning scientists who’ve failed to produce any correct predictions by using their Models and have resisted the obvious scientific need and responsibility to revisit what has instead essentially become only their own version of completely unhinged-from-reality Pre-Enlightenment Dogmatic Verbiage, should not be funded by our Government – especially since it has increasingly proven that it is also unable to distinguish reality from its own purely political needs, which are increasingly directed toward crass ends and psychopathological needs.

        Dennis, whoever subscribes to the Pre-Enlightenment methods as above does not subscribe to the Enlightenment’s science. They are stuck somewhere back in the 1700’s, at best.

      • Thanks for the offer Dennis but I’m far too busy assisting to make inexpensive iron and steel (to improve millions of lives) to take time off to teach junior engineers what “empirical evidence” means. Engineering depends on recognizing patterns, determining causality, and recognizing what your variables are. Natural climate variation is glaciation cycles, 10 degree “average” swings, and 130 metre sea level change. Since the theoretical feedbacks that would result in catastrophic warming have never been observed in nature, that means that they don’t exist. Or at least, they don’t exist on Earth.

        My training includes geology. For most of the earth’s history it has been warmer on land than it is today. I am willing to learn though, if you have something to teach. Not click-bait, your words. Why is the last 50 years different than the 50 million years?

        Take your time, when an incorrect guess can kill people you should be sure you’re getting it right. I don’t mean theoretical people 100 years from now, I mean real poor people who are denied clean cooking fuel and refrigeration today because the policies you appear to support raise prices beyond what they can afford. If you don’t know then don’t fake it: claiming expertise you don’t have can be criminal.

      • Michael Doll, ‘isthatright’, and JPeden,

        Thanks for your considered and well thought out responses to Dennis Horne.

        Unfortunately, they will be wasted on Mr Horne, who has repeatedly shown that he is incapable of learning anything. He is the antithesis of a scientific skeptic; he is a closed-minded believer in the ‘carbon’ scare and in catastrophic AGW — but with no credible facts, or evidence, or measurements to support his belief. His arguments consist almost exclusively of appeals to questionable authorities, and baseless assertions. Facts roll off him like a rainstorm off a duck.

        You can always tell a climate alarmist by the one thing they all have in common: zero skepticism. They are all alike in that respect. None of them are Feynman-type scientific skeptics. Alarmists believe, and no facts, measurements (or lack of measurements), or observations, or contrary evidence can ever change their belief.

        It is obvious that Horne is no skeptic. His belief is no less intense than that of a Jehovah’s Witness, and you will get no farther in convincing him than you would with any similar religious cult member.

        But thanks for at least trying. I’ve tried by posting dozens of links to data-based charts, and peer reviewed publications, and universally accepted empirical observations, and endless comparisons with the planet’s past temperature record. None of it has had the slightest effect. Horne argues his eco-religion incessantly. I don’t think he is capable of overcoming his belief system.

  82. isthatright May 16, 2016 at 10:44 am
    … consensus means absolutely nothing in science.

    Every scientist on the planet hopes his or her work will be important and accepted by other scientists.

    Consensus.

    Our Reality.

    • Dennis,

      Acceptance of a paper by others is not proof of one’s hypothesis. Only experimental data and replication using that data are steps of the scientific method leading to a proven hypothesis.

    • “Every scientist on the planet hopes his or her work will be important and accepted by other scientists.

      Consensus.”

      A number of them also hope to go beyond “important and accepted”. The need for “important and accepted” alone, and without accurate, honest, & moral, created quite a bit of confusion in the late ’30’s & throughout the ’40’s. Consensus alone just helps you get your way … that’s all it does.

      If a person feels a need to exaggerate or lie through omission to make their point, then deep down (or even at the surface) they must realize that there is something wrong with their point.

      CONSENSUS: general agreement: agreement, harmony, concurrence, accord, unity, unanimity, solidarity.

      If there truly were a consensus then you wouldn’t be here blithering on about “consensus”.

  83. DonM,

    The “consensus” canard was thoroughly demolished here:

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/09/aliens-cause-global-warming-a-caltech-lecture-by-michael-crichton

    But like the Hydra, it keeps raising its ugly head. As Crichton says, ‘consensus’ is an extremely pernicious development that has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.

    ‘Consensus’ is used as an argument by people who have no other arguments. In the case of D. Horne, his pseudo-science arguments have all been destroyed with facts and evidence. ‘Consensus’, and his ridiculous appeals to authorities like Veterinarians and Pediatricians, are the only arguments he has left, because skeptics have won the science debate.

  84. I happened to come across a HotWhopper post on this. It was fascinating to see a seemingly intelligent person be so far from reality.

    She writes this:

    “The emails contain nothing that shows anything more than the very real concern by scientists that there are wicked people who are trying to thwart efforts to mitigate global warming.”

    I certainly believe that this is exactly what Shukla himself believed. Early in the email exchange Shukla receives this information: “He (David Michaels, expert in the case against the tobacco industry) feels the odds of the DOJ pursuing this case against industry are slim to none…” and chooses to ignore it. HotWhopper ignores it as well.

    “very real concern” = “odds are slim to none”

    In their world everybody else is wrong, therefore they are right and this is not email showing the underlying process that is at the root of alarmism at all, but simply bad advice from an expert in the tobacco case.

    • Yes, Miriam O’Brien aka Sou/hotwhopper lives in her own customized bubble of alternate reality. She’s really a sad person with a one-track closed mind. Most people eventually see her for what she is.

  85. It’s not logical to believe the oil companies don’t know the world is warming. It’s accepted by 97% of all scientists, that climate change is real, that it is man made, and that it is happening now.

    The nerve of you people trying to claim scientists would mislead someone must take some kind of mental profile I don’t want to know more about.

    Scientists don’t lie.

    [??? .mod]

    • “….that climate change is real, that it is man made, and that it is happening now. ”
      Yes, climate change is happening now, just as it has been changing for the past 4.3 billion years on our planet.

      Please provide the empirical data which proves that all climate change is man-made.

    • I applaud the observations that our Earth is getting warmer and greener.

      From what I know of conditions in the Ice Ages, I think we are very lucky not to be living in one.

      Warmer is better.

  86. Dan,
    Bring it on, tool.
    The EPA findings about CO2 being as it has been described will absolutely fail if tried in a fair and open court.
    The RICO action should be against those who have convinced weak minded fools into believing the world is facing a CO2 caused climate crisis.
    The last thing the climate kooks want is an open discussion of the issue.

Comments are closed.