More #RICO20 GMU emails released

While some emails were released previously here, due to a glitch in my system, I didn’t get a second file link posted that I should have.

Many of the emails in this file have already been released previously and discussed here at WUWT. But to make sure we have not missed anything, here is the second file scanned by CEI that contains both old and new emails.

GMU-email-dump2 (PDF 24MB – note reduced size from previous PDF format -Anthony)


Meanwhile, here is some useful analysis of the other batch released.

With Each New Batch of FOIA’d Emails, More Insight into Collusion behind RICO Climate Effort
From Energy in Depth by Katie Brown, PhD

The Washington Times has just reported on a batch of newly released emails, which pull back the curtain even further on the level of collusion and coordination that’s taken – and still actively taking — place among those who would like state attorneys general to use RICO laws to prosecute dissenting voices on climate change.

These new emails show a number of folks from Rockefeller funded organizations working together to promote the InsideClimate News (ICN) stories to increase the echo chamber.  They also reveal that after George Mason University (GMU) professors Jagadish Shukla and Edward Maibach sent a letter in September 2015 with 18 other colleagues to U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch and President Obama asking them to explore RICO charges against climate “deniers” and their funders, the coordinated campaign went into “full damage-control mode,” as the Washington Times puts it.

As EID reported recently, Climate Nexus, an environmental PR firm funded by the Rockefeller foundations, was called in to help manage the enormous volume of criticism these professors received from their colleagues in the wake of their letter. One of the emails from September 29, 2015 comes from Shukla to Michael Mann, a climate activist who once filed a lawsuit to muzzle individuals he called “climate deniers.” Mann also sits on the advisory board of the Rockefeller-funded Climate Accountability Institute (CAI).  In the email, Shukla asks Mann for help:

EID1

Mann then introduces Shukla to Aaron Huertas from the Union of Concerned Scientists and Philip Newell of Climate Nexus, asking if they “might have some suggestions and/or resources that you can bring to bear here” in light of the controversy the letter had instigated.

EID2

Newell’s response is quite interesting:

EID3

EID4

To sum all this up, Newell basically tells Shukla, et al. to buck-up and double-down, suggesting that help was on the way in the form of InsideClimate’s upcoming series attacking ExxonMobil.

In another email, also dated September 29, 2015 InsideClimate publisher David Sassoon wrote to six Climate Nexus executives including Nesbitt with an embargoed copy of its #ExxonKnew series.  He said, “Here’s the story, embargoed until 12:10 am tonight 9/30/15.”

EID5

All of these organizations involved in these emails – InsideClimate, Climate Nexus, Climate Accountability Institute and Union of Concerned Scientists – are all funded by the Rockefeller foundations. In fact, Climate Accountability Institute and Union of Concerned Scientists are the groups that hosted the Rockefeller-funded 2012 conference in La Jolla California, which was held for activists to brainstorm ways they could help hasten the RICO prosecution strategy.

These revelations come the same week in which the Rockefeller Brothers Fund (RBF) sent a letter to the House Science Committee stating that it will not comply with the committee’s request to turn over documents relating to its collusion with activists and state attorneys general. As RBF president Stephen Heintz boldly declares in his letter,

“As part of this body of work, the RBF has supported efforts to encourage private companies to assess how climate change risks may impact their future business. There is no ‘collusion’ as asserted in the letter from the 13 members of Congress—only open and routine cooperation between funders and their grantees.” (emphasis added)

The “nothing to see here” defense captured in the RBF letter has become the talking-point-of-choice for all activists confronted by the release of the emails. Peter Frumhoff of the Rockefeller-funded Union of Concerned Scientists also told the New York Times that they have transparent the whole time and “there’s nothing hidden here.”

Of course, what the emails actually show is that Frumhoff was secretly working with state attorneys general to instigate climate investigations long before InsideClimate News and Columbia School of Journalism released their stories. Erich Pica of the Rockefeller-funded Friends of the Earth also met with Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh in February, just days before Frosh announced he was considering an investigation into Exxon.

And we’d be remiss if we didn’t mention the emails first reported by Reuters that show staff with the New York attorney general’s office asking activist Matt Pawa, who sits on the board of the Rockefeller-funded Climate Accountability Institute, to not reveal to a Wall Street Journal reporter that he had briefed them before their March 29th press conference with Al Gore. That’s not a request one would typically make of someone involved in a “transparent” and definitely “not hidden” campaign.

If activists are right about one thing, it’s this: their collusion isn’t hidden anymore.

Link to post: http://energyindepth.org/national/with-each-new-batch-of-foiad-emails-more-insight-into-collusion-behind-rico-climate-effort/

Advertisements

68 thoughts on “More #RICO20 GMU emails released

  1. “that they have transparent the whole time and “there’s nothing hidden here.”….should that be “have BEEN transparent” ?

  2. It is just disgusting corruption.

    Years ago when I started following the AGW wars, I naively thought there might actually be some science behind the gloom and doom and scare stories.

    Now the putrid facts are on display, it is all about greed and corruption. And worst of all, it is boring. . .

    • This could be called many things but I don’t think anyone could seriously call it boring.

      The Rockefeller family over the decades has made no secret of the fact that it seeks a “One World Government” (for them… not you). Their continued support of supranational institutions and causes such as climate change is but one small facet of their quest for (more) power. These therefore are extremely important disclosures.

  3. …Ever since I downloaded the first batch of Emails, I’ve been getting ” Unsecured Connection” warnings when ever i attempt to visit WUWT !! …Anybody else having that problem or is it just my computer just being a jerk ? LOL

      • Anthony

        I put in a flag on this to Firefox a while back after similar problems and mentioned WUWT. Not sure what happened but the problem has gone for now

      • Anyone who upgraded to W10 may have that issue of warnings. The root cause is that part of the site is https and part is http (the ads) so you get a warning about the certificates or the insecurity. I use a BB10 device and the same thing occurred when WordPress went to https.

  4. As in the following..

    Secure Connection Failed

    The connection to the server was reset while the page was loading.

    The page you are trying to view cannot be shown because the authenticity of the received data could not be verified.
    Please contact the website owners to inform them of this problem.

    • Marcus June 2, 2016 at 3:21 pm

      Anthony Watts June 2, 2016 at 3:25 pm
      try using Chrome and dump your existing browser

      Marcus I asked my my computer wizard son. Anthony is correct Try Chrome.
      And thanks for what you have been doing
      michael

      I will drag him out if Things are still funky for you

      • ….Thanks Mike, it was FireFox not playing nice ..I’m not a fan of Chrome, but for WUWT I will switch !

      • I’m using Firefox and it is fine.

        What is not fine is old Firefox or old any browser.

        There was a security flaw found in older SSL encryptions and web sites are shutting them off. Old browsers don’t have the newer protocols, so throw security errors with things like “can’t get a shared encryption” and secure connection failed.

        Typically any new browser fixes the problem.

        FWIW, I regularly rotate between Opera, Chrome, Firefox, Ice Weasel, Seamonkey, Midori, Epiphany, and a couple of others… so I’m agnostic on browser preference. Oh, and Safari on the Mac…

        Why all the browsers? Very odd collection of hardware and many Raspberry Pi cards with a half dozen different Linux releases. Many only offer one browser in their port… so I use it.

        Yes, I’m a computer geek for a living… I explore the variety partly just for fun…

  5. Much as I try to control it, when discussing this with friends I keep saying Edward Mailbox!

  6. So, a bunch of activists got together with a bunch of AGs to suggest the prosecution of some other people. Is that illegal? Is there a bright line that separates illegal collusion from legal lobbying?

      • I don’t think that believing something to be true an absolute defense to libel charges. If that was the case no one would ever be found guilty of libel. For all one would ever have to do to have a libel charge dismissed is to claim they believe it to be true. How would someone disprove what you believe? If I called someone (not a public figure) a liar, a fraud and a cheat, the truth would be an absolute defense, but my believing something that was not true would not be a defense.

      • “You are a liar”

        “I believe the facts show you to be a liar”

        If the person is not a liar, statement 1 is false, but statement 2 may still be true.

      • Tom, it doesn’t matter what the person believes. The statement has to be actually true.
        Repeating a lie, that you believe to be true, is still libel.

    • I think this is a very strong point. To my knowledge, none of this is illegal. The only this this does is undermine the “unfunded independent scientist against big oil” routine they sometimes try and come out with. It might possibly show that the attorneys general gave legal advice of interfered with third party lawsuits.

      However, aside from minor procedural or technical issues, what is being revealed other than what was already widely known?

      • benofhouston June 2, 2016 at 4:00 pm
        I think this is a very strong point. To my knowledge, none of this is illegal.

        Nope. Libel & slander laws you don’t just get to drag people and business into court just to make a personal observation. Non do you get to advocate dragging people into court on charges that you know are not valid.

        Look at the previous article we are coming close to a redo of the Nuremberg laws. Not the same intent true but just as chilling.
        Sorry someone had to say it.

        I have read to much history

        michael

      • How is it libel? They believe it to be true. That’s an absolute defense. Any statements of opinion are also absolute defense against slander charges.

        Conspiring to try to get someone whom you believe to be a lawbreaker imprisoned is not illegal either, otherwise private investigators would be illegal. Saying that you want someone to go to jail on barely applicable charges is free speech as well. Saying you want them to go to jail for made-up nonsense is still protected free speech. Even Gore’s big meeting in New York is only fodder for making them lose elections (deciding guilt before starting investigation, prosecuting free speech, is this who you want representing you?).

        The ONLY people who have committed misdeeds are the attorneys general who issued subpoenas or charges based on politically pressuring opponents. If we can reveal that they knew the charges were not going to stick and were doing it for political pressure or harassment, THAT is the gold mine that could result in impeachment or disbarment. However, they’d have to be quite incompetent to put anything like that in an e-mail.

        Any real benefit that we get from this is going to have to be unexpected from left field. Bribery or open proof of corruption. They aren’t bad enough to let that happen.

      • benofhouston June 2, 2016 at 6:06 pm

        libel and slander are old and very specific.
        If the intent is to damage someone reputation or harm them financially then bingo.

        Just because you believe is no excuse. If you wish to attack a person you better have you ducks lined up in a row.
        michael

      • There might be a basis for a civil suit claiming “Tortious Interference with business relationships”. Basically this is defined as making false claims and accusations against a business or an individual’s reputation in order to drive business away.

        In this case, one could argue that the Maibach and the UCS were accusing “climate denying” organizations of violating RICO… even while admitting privately that they could find no legal basis for their own charges. In short, motivated by malice, these climate “activists” real motives were to drive business away from “climate denying” parties by attacking their “businesses” with false claims.

        The current set of emails could be useful, since they suggest that UCS & Maibach knew there wasn’t a basis for the RICO charges; but, never-the-less appear to have proceeded to attack the “climate denying” parties business interests.

      • Mike, for it to be defamation, the statements must be false and whoever said it must have known or “should have known” that they are false. That’s a huge step that you cannot overcome. The American court system is famously lenient on speech. The only thing possibly actionable is the letter demanding investigation on RICO itself, and you can’t say that they “should” have known it was false when two attorneys general agreed enough to start the investigation. Unless there’s an outright statement by their attorney stating that this will never fly, this has ZERO chance of making it past even the basic definition stage, much less an actual investigation.

        Again, this falls onto the officials, who should know better, did damaging actions instead of just talk, and are held to a higher standard than laymen due to their authority.

      • 18 U.S. Code § 241 – Conspiracy against rights
        If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States…They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both

      • 18 U.S. Code § 241 – Conspiracy against rights
        If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, … They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both;

      • A number of years back a local anchor repeated the old saw about the Proctor and Gamble logo being a satanic symbol in a speech. He believed it to be true.
        He was sued for libel and lost.

    • commiebob

      Yup – the bright line is crossed when group A colludes to take away protected rights of Group B (that’s more-or-less the definition of “protected”…).

    • I believe the bright line is persecuting, er, prosecuting belief and speech… Criminalizing a search for truth… That whole first amendment thing. These folks are colluding to use goverment power to violate fundamental liberties.

    • “Is there a bright line that separates illegal collusion from legal lobbying?”

      It’s the result or the intended result. Collusion is a secret meeting to achieve an illegal outcome or result. If the intention is not illegal, then its just a meeting or campaign.

      A group can do anything a person can do; that’s the essence of “Citizens United”. If Maibach can appeal to a congressperson (First Amendment) then a group can do so. By itself I do not see anything illegal about the request to persade Congress to attempt a RICO prosecution. But if the attempt fails, then you have grounds to prosecute the prosecutors and then they may well be considered to have been colluding.

      The defense seems to be “but we weren’t asking for prosecution, only investigation!”

      Grand Jury investigations bypass most Constitutional rights and can be invoked on a whim by a State or County prosecutor (attorney general). They apparently can go “fishing” for evidence of a crime and can subpoena pretty much anything and anyone. Witnesses that refuse to testify can be incarcerated solely on those grounds. On the other hand, a Grand Jury cannot find you guilty and testimony provided to Grand Juries is sealed; not supposed to be made available to subsequent trial juries. So it is more like a super auditor.

      If the Grand Jury believes a crime has been committed, then they issue an indictment and their work is done. The indictment then proceeds to a regular trial where Constitutional rights exist.

      Comparing this to tobacco is ridiculous. Tobacco has no particular value and is mostly bad for everyone. Oil and coal is mostly good for everyone and its utility is well established — it is stored ENERGY.

  7. It is interesting that the Rockefeller Brothers Fund (RBF) would claim they’re being “transparent” and say “there’s nothing hidden here” as an excuse to hide their emails from public view.

  8. I do enjoy Mann’s response.

    parahrasing of course…..

    “So you hit a guy and he fought back, what a dick, we need to bring in the troops”

  9. And when, pray tell, do these virtuous climate activists use their private email to extol the virtues of bonfires of incorrect thinking books … must ensure that the peasants learn to submit, conform, and obey their self-appointed betters.

    And for those that refuse to adhere to the wisdom of their betters, there are always mental health clinics where the peasants can be taught the errors of their ways.

    The sad thing is, these self-appointed betters are doubtless thinking that their way is pure and selfless … what’s that about paving a certain road?

    • The liberal elite make these rules for us Peons…They, of course, believe that they are immune to their own demands. ( see..De’crappio and his Fossil Fuel burning long flight to accept his ” Green Award” )

      • Look at these guys. UK one day west coast the next Africa the day after east coast the day after that. These guys are flying all over the bloody place. They definitely have Di Capprio disease.

  10. I hate that ratbag Phil Newel! [snip -language] on reddit…actually caught him colluding with the moderators (they mistakenly did a public post) to try and force out all dissenting opinion, which of course everyone denied until later. I hope they face the music for their actions…faces plastered across the news and everyone realizing the size of their web of lies and misinformation.

  11. I know its email and all, ya know. But like, readin them the grammar is turrible, like, ya know. These guys are university professors and all? Go figur. ;-)

  12. Something is very wrong with the GMU FOIA administrators competence!!

    The 17 last pages of the posted pdf of GMU emails, page268 to 285, are highly personal emails concerning personnel annual reviews and confidential and strictly private info of the hiring process for two GMU positions.

    This is unquestionably personal stuff that should not be published. What is going on? How did GMU FOIA staff let that get into the court ordered document release? I see a lawsuit against GMU for allowing the private info released to CEI!!

    John

    • Don’t share it. Let the courts deal with it. It may be a Trojan Horse, to cause people to show the FOIA process is flawed.

      Deal just with the subject.

      And good catch.

      michael

    • oh crap..
      John Whitman
      do their requirements for advancement require attacks on skeptics???

      michael

  13. Still, one constituency that remains fully behind Robertson is the crusading Tides Foundation, the powerful and deep-pocketed American environmentalist group that’s set its sights on shutting down Alberta’s oilsands industry. Robertson’s move from the juice business into political leadership was lubricated by Tides’ network of eco-activists. Nearly a quarter of the money raised by his Vision Vancouver party during his first race eight years ago was donated by people and organizations connected to Robertson’s green mentor, Joel Solomon, a long-time driving force with Tides. Many were from Solomon’s American network, hoping to make Vancouver into an “incubator” for their green agenda that could be spread to other cities, as one U.S. millionaire donor later explained to the Vancouver Sun.

    Gregor’s ‘clean, green’ anti-pipeline zeal is his own thing, not Vancouver’s

    • And couldn’t have been too happy about having his de facto oil monopoly broken by anti-trust regs (pushed by progressives, back when they were halfway sane). Now his descendants seek another monopoly, and are using the family’s former enemies (progressives) as unwitting (or knowing) allies.

      • Rockefeller never had anywhere close to an oil monopoly. His market share had peaked and was falling long before his competitors decided that suing their way to market dominance was easier than actually creating a better product.

  14. Climate Nexus products- Sold only in lisenced climate salons by climate styling professionals.

  15. Have any of these released emails targeted any WUWT regular posters like Bob T., Anthony W., Willis, etc…?
    I have Adobe Acrobat Pro but for some reason haven’t been able to open the pdf emails…

  16. Back to the browser discussion. For me Firefox is and always has been a perfect browser. I always install the latest versions/upgrades and have been happy for years! I use Windows 7 happily too.
    Why should I change?

  17. There are some emails at the end of this file that really really should NOT have been made public.

    Did you look at the file before publishing it?

    Please take it down and cut out the personal and salary stuff that’s nothing to do with the RICO letter (easy to do, for example with pdfsplit) before re-posting. It’s roughly the last 20 pages.

  18. After all of this, the fossil fuel guys still forgot to send me a check this month …

    • Whenever I read about how anyone and everyone who is not in lockstep with the AGW mob MUST be getting funds from the fossil fuel industry, I think that the skeptics probably wish this was true more than the alarmists do. At least until those nasty consciences and principles rear their heads.

  19. 18 U.S. Code 241 – Conspiracy against rights
    If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or ..

    They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both;

    (mods – had problems posting this. might appear more than once)

  20. Ed Maibach and Jeff Nesbit are linked through http://www.climateaccess.org/advisory-board

    They spoke on the same platform for “The Consultative Group on Biological Diversity – Climate and Funders Group” in 2012 – “Join us to assess how philanthropic investment can further build networked capacity and shift the narrative back in our favor” – In the light of of the RICO events it is well worth reading the agenda and attendees of this event (EPA administrator Lisa Jackson advising philanthropists on how to fund pro-AGW policies). https://www.regonline.com/custImages/330000/335635/CEFG2012Agenda.pdf

    Rockefeller Brothers Fund and Rockefellers Family Fund are funding many ‘climate communication’ organizations and consensus papers like this one: https://www.climatecommunication.org/who-we-are/about-us/ – spot the familiar names on the list of scientific advisors including Maibach. Rockefeller Family Fund (different but related) is also on the funding for Maibach’s Centre for Climate Change Communication.

    Rockefellers Brothers Foundation funds Climate Nexus – which has Jeff Nesbit as executive director and Phil Newell as Creative Media Manager. Phil Newell was revealed to be the administrator of climatebloggers a Google group which is co-ordinating the work of Dana Nuccitelli, Greg Laden, Peter Sinclair and Aaron Huertas, to manage and cross-link the messages.

    Climate Nexus employs 24 people, with nearly $1.2m dollars since 2014 and is part of the Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors project. http://www.rbf.org/grantees/rockefeller-philanthropy-advisors.

    Jeff Nesbit (who is advising Maibach) is a special projects director of Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors and according to the 990 form a role he was paid about $250k per year – http://pdfs.citizenaudit.org/2015_09_EO/13-3615533_990_201412.pdf – (Climate Nexus is not on the 990 form as it’s an internal ‘sponsored project’).

    Rockefellers Brothers Foundation also one of the funders of 350.org – $775,000 since 2012 (http://www.rbf.org/grantees/350org) – and InsideClimate News (which is Lost Light Projects Inc) – $800,000 since 2014 which are at the root of the Exxon stories and divestment campaigns.

    The smaller Rockefeller’s Family Fund RFF is also putting money behind 350.org – $400,000 in 2012 and cross funding Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors aka Climate Nexus ($250k in 2012). Here’s Grist explaining how Rockefellers Family Fund helped with co-ordination of 350.org anti-coal action: http://grist.org/article/2011-02-14-behind-the-scenes-in-the-big-fight-against-coal/ – note that Grist also gets funding from RFF.

    RFF is most likely being pushed by parts of the Rockefeller family including ecological economist Neva Rockefeller Godwin. The family has been battling Exxon for a while (since 2003 at least according to the WSJ from 2008) http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB121157457128518175

    RFF set up the Environmental Grantmakers Association an umbrella body for environmental grant making. They produce an annual report – Tracking the Field – describing where funds go
    https://ega.org/sites/default/files/pubs/summaries/TTFv5_Summary%20Final.pdf

    “In 2013, 55% of funding for ‘Energy & Climate’ used ‘Advocacy / Organising / Movement Building’ or ‘Public Policy’ as the strategy” – from their chart on page 5, that would be 55% of around $350 million dollars – ie about funding of $190 million in one year on advocacy & organisation projects specifically about energy and climate.

    From page 8, in total according to the Environmental Grantmakers Association, their members put more than $1.1 billion dollars into environmental ‘advocacy/organising and movement building’ between 2011 and 2013.

    Grantham Foundation and the Energy Foundation are also funders of Maibach’s Centre for Climate Change Communication, Insideclimate New and 350.org. The Grantham Foundation alone “doles out $15 million to $20 million yearly” for climate change communication projects.

    The numbers are staggering. There are hundreds of professional paid people pushing this agenda. It’s not a shoestring activity being driven from the grass-roots and it’s not a short term interest.

    Looking longer term, Rockefeller Brothers Fund have been deliberately working on this for decades – this comes from 1974 http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED107165.pdf where they define their education strategy. The Fund “can invest its resources to promote as efficiently as possible, significant change and innovation in the postsecondary educational system that will contribute to transformation of ecological crisis to a state of equilibrium” (pg 13). “We have already assumed the Fund’s most general goal to be the promotion of ‘ecological education.'” (pg 20). “We need, ultimately, to develop an ‘ecological education’ that can produce the ‘transformers’ defined by the emerging new model”.

    [From 1989] “David Jr. invited the other cousins as well as outside experts to help shape an agenda for the fund. Their suggestions helped form the foundation of ‘A strategy for the 80’s,’ an agenda adopted by the fund in 1983. The agenda is built on a ‘one world’ theme, pushing the fund further into environmental programs. While the fund was an early contributor to research on greenhouse gases and global warming, today it invests fully 40 percent of its money in programs to protect the world’s water, forests, land and air resources.”
    http://www.nytimes.com/1989/11/05/business/philanthropy-for-the-21st-century.html?pagewanted=all

    RBF helped also helped fund/launch The Climate Group in 2004 which aims at influencing at government level. http://www.rbf.org/sites/default/files/2004_Annual_Report.pdf

    http://www.insidephilanthropy.com/climate-change/2016/4/15/neva-rockefeller-goodwin-and-the-role-of-the-activist-invest.html
    http://www.insidephilanthropy.com/climate-change/2013/10/12/whats-behind-the-money-behind-mckibben.html
    http://www.insidephilanthropy.com/home/2015/9/25/dear-climate-funders-the-clock-is-ticking-use-your-endowment.html
    http://www.insidephilanthropy.com/home/2015/8/21/who-said-big-foundations-cant-change-four-takeaways-from-mac.html

Comments are closed.