AG's striking back at #ExxonKnew and #RICO20 say – "we can come after climate alarmists for fraud, too"

From the Washington Times and the department of “Mutally Assured Destruction” (MAD) comes this blowback.

If Democratic attorneys general can pursue climate change skeptics for fraud, then also at risk of prosecution are climate alarmists whose predictions of global doom have failed to materialize.

The “cuts both ways” argument was among those raised by 13 Republican attorneys general in a letter urging their Democratic counterparts to stop using their law enforcement power against fossil fuel companies and others that challenge the climate change catastrophe narrative.

Here is the text of the letter:


AG-letter-header

Dear Fellow Attorneys General:

Several state Attorneys General recently held a press conference under the banner of “AGs United for Clean Power.” The media event highlighted an investigation into “whether fossil fuel companies misled investors and the public on the impact of climate change on their businesses.” 1 We think this effort by our colleagues to police the global warming debate through the power of the subpoena is a grave mistake.

We all understand the need for a healthy environment, but we represent a wide range of viewpoints regarding the extent to which man contributes to climate change and the costs and benefits of any proposed fix. Nevertheless, we agree on at least one thing— this is not a question for the courts. Using law enforcement authority to resolve a public policy debate undermines the trust invested in our offices and threatens free speech.

We are concerned that our colleagues’ investigation undermines the trust the people have invested in Attorneys General to investigate fraud. Investigatory subpoenas were issued to at least one company and one non-profit believed to have made statements minimizing the risks of climate change. 2 At the press conference, one of our colleagues noted that “[w]e are pursuing this as we would any other fraud matter.”3 We routinely investigate fraud, and have done so with many of the states present at the press conference. But this investigation is far from routine. We are unaware of any fraud case combining the following three characteristics: 1) the investigation targets a particular type of market participant; 2) the Attorneys General identify themselves with the competitors of their investigative targets; and 3) the investigation implicates an ongoing public policy debate.

First, this fraud investigation targets only “fossil fuel companies” and only statements minimizing climate change risks. 4 If it is possible to minimize the risks of climate change, then the same goes for exaggeration. If minimization is fraud, exaggeration is fraud. Some have indicated that Exxon Mobil’s securities disclosures regarding climate change may be inadequate. 5 We do not know the accuracy of these charges. We do know that Exxon Mobil discloses climate change and its possible implications as a business risk. See Exxon Mobil Corporation SEC Form 10-k, FY 2014 (listing “Climate change and greenhouse gas restrictions” as an item 1A risk factor). If Exxon’s disclosure is deficient, what of the failure of renewable energy companies to list climate change as a risk? See, e.g., SolarCity Corporation SEC Form 10-k, FY 2014 (omitting from item 1A risk factors any mention of climate change or global warming). If climate change is perceived to be slowing or becoming less of a risk, many “clean energy” companies may become less valuable and some may be altogether worthless. Therefore, any fraud theory requiring more disclosure of Exxon would surely require more disclosure by “clean energy” companies.

Similarly, it has been asserted that “fossil fuel companies” may have funded non- profits who minimized the risks of climate change. 6 Does anyone doubt that “clean energy” companies have funded non-profits who exaggerated the risks of climate change? Under the stated theory for fraud, consumers and investors could suffer harm from misstatements by all energy-market participants and the non-profits they support. Yet only companies and non-profits allegedly espousing a particular viewpoint have been chosen for investigation.

Second, the Attorneys General have taken the unusual step of aligning themselves with the competitors of their investigative targets. The press conference was titled, “AGs United for Clean Power,” apparently to contrast with the power generated by the investigative targets. 7 One of our colleagues emphasized that she looked forward to working with those at the press conference to “advocate for a comprehensive portfolio of renewable energy sources.” 8 Furthermore, the media event featured a senior partner of a venture capital firm that invests in renewable energy companies.9 If the focus is fraud, such alignment by law enforcement sends the dangerous signal that companies in certain segments of the energy market need not worry about their misrepresentations. For example, though some of us may have investigated diesel emissions, we have not launched our investigations with other auto companies present or identified ourselves as “AGs United for Diesel Alternatives.” Implying a safe harbor for the “Clean Power” energy segment, which some estimate at $200 billion, or approximately the size of the pharmaceutical industry, is a dangerous practice. 10

Third, this investigation inescapably implicates a public policy debate and raises substantial First Amendment concerns. As our colleagues must know, a vigorous debate exists in this country regarding the risks of climate change and the appropriate response to those risks. Both sides are well-funded and sophisticated public policy participants. Whatever our country’s response, it will affect people, communities, and businesses that all have a right to participate in this debate. Actions indicating that one side of the climate change debate should fear prosecution chills speech in violation of a formerly bi-partisan First Amendment consensus. As expressed by Justice Brandeis, it has been a foundational principle that when faced with “danger flowing from speech … the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.” Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 377 (1927) (Brandeis, J., concurring). Here, the remedy chosen is silence through threat of subpoena. This threat distorts the debate and impoverishes consumers and the general public who may wish to better educate themselves by hearing and evaluating both sides.

Once the government begins policing viewpoints, two solutions exist. The first solution is to police all viewpoints equally. Another group of Attorneys General could use the precedent established by the “AGs United for Clean Power” to investigate fraudulent statements associated with competing interests. The subpoenas currently directed at some market participants could be met with a barrage of subpoenas directed at other market participants. No doubt a reasonable suspicion exists regarding a number of statements relating to the risks of climate change. Even in the press conference, a senior partner at Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers (“Kleiner Perkins”) identified “man- made global warming pollution” as “the reason” for 2015 temperatures, the spread of Zika, flooding in Louisiana and Arkansas, Super Storm Sandy, and Super Typhoon Haiyan. 11 Some evidence may support these statements. Other evidence may refute them. Do these statements increase the value of clean energy investments offered for sale by Kleiner Perkins? Should these statements justify an investigation into all contributions to environmental non-profits by Kleiner Perkins’s partners? Should these questions be settled by our state courts under penalty of RICO charges? May it never be. As Justice Jackson noted, our “forefathers did not trust any government to separate the true from the false for us.” Thomas v. Collins, 323 U.S. 516, 545 (1945).

We write to urge our colleagues to choose the second, and far superior, solution. Stop policing viewpoints.

Sincerely,

ag-letter-signatories

1 Press Release, New York State Attorney General, A.G. Schneiderman, Former Vice President Al Gore And A Coalition Of Attorneys General From Across The Country Announce Historic State-Based Effort To Combat Climate Change (March 29, 2016) (available at http://www.ag.ny.gov/press-release/ag- schneiderman-former-vice-president-al-gore-and-coalition-attorneys-general-across).

2 See, e.g., Attorney General Schneiderman, Press Conference, AGs United For Clean Power (March 29, 2016) (confirming subpoena to ExxonMobil) (video available at http://www.ag.ny.gov/press-release/ag- schneiderman-former-vice-president-al-gore-and-coalition-attorneys-general-across); Subpoena to Competitive Enterprise Institute, United States Virgin Islands, Office of the Attorney General v. ExxonMobil Oil Corp., Case No. 16-002469, Superior Court of the District of Columbia (April 4, 2016).

3 Attorney General Schneiderman, Press Conference, AGs United For Clean Power, supra note 2.

4 See generally Press Release, New York State Attorney General, supra note 1; Press Conference, AGs United For Clean Power, supra note 2.

5 See, e.g., Attorney General Healey, Press Conference, AGs United For Clean Power, supra note 2.

6 See, e.g., Attorney General Schneiderman, Press Conference, AGs United For Clean Power, supra note 2.

7 See generally Press Release, New York State Attorney General, supra note 1; Press Conference, AGs United For Clean Power, supra note 2.

8 Press Release, New York State Attorney General, supra note 1 (quoting Attorney General Madigan).

9 See Press Release, New York State Attorney General, supra note 1 (noting presence of Vice President Gore); Press Conference, AGs United For Clean Power, supra note 2 (including remarks by Vice President Gore); Press Release, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, Al Gore Joins KPCB as Partner and John Doerr Joins Generation’s Advisory Board (November 12, 2007)

10 See, e.g., Informational Report, Environmental Defense Fund, Climate (2015), at 2 (noting “U.S. clean energy market grew … to $200 billion,” in 2014) (available at https://www.edf.org/sites/default/files/AR2015/EDF_AR2015_climate.pdf).

11 Vice President Gore, Press Conference, AGs United For Clean Power, supra note 2. https://www.generationim.com/media/pdf-generation-kpcb-12-11-07.pdf); Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers public website, available at http://www.kpcb.com/partner/al-gore (confirming Vice President Gore’s present status as a “senior partner”).

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
tadchem

There’s an old saying, “What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.” This meshes well with the Golden Rule, or ethic of reciprocity, which is a key moral principle in many religions and philosophies, and is often stated as “Do unto others as you wish to be done for you”, or conversely, “Don’t do unto others what you would not wish to be done to you.”

Dinsdale

Something about throwing stones in glass houses comes to mind as well

ShrNfr

It is probably proper not to throw orgies in glass houses either.

MarkW

Depends on how you swing. Exhibitionism while not exactly rampant, does exist.

Robert W Turner

Or how about a game of I’ll show you mine if you show me yours.
We all know that the climate change industry has a lot more to hide about climate science than Exxon and conservative think tanks do. It’s laughable — as well as insulting for other reasons — that they are even gullible enough to start this without seeing where it could and should lead.

I expect that ClimateGate is sufficient cause to prosecute Mann, et al for fraud under RICO

lee

But for the warmists it is do unto others, then run like hell.

Or, do unto others and then get your mates to run interference.

I am surprised this hasn’t happened earlier. Green hype is as chargable as fraud as any other exaggeration that serves one’s business interests. Go for it!

John Harmsworth

Exactly! Drop the gloves and lets have at it!

Hanson’s “adjustments” could be called “Falsifying Public Documents.” (I have raved they “should” be.)

Pete J.

Sadly, we don’t see Colorado’s AG being among the signatories.

I wonder if the AG , Republican Cynthia Coffman , is constrained by being under Democrat Governor John Hickenlooper . Are any of these AGs under dem Governors ?

SMC

I think, pretty confident actually, they are all under republican governors.

Barbara Skolaut

She shouldn’t be, Bob. Attorneys General are elected separately in all states, AFAIK, not appointed. They can do what they want, within the law*; doesn’t make any difference who the governor is.
*And, judging from decades of observation, if they’re Democrats, outside the law as well.

RHS

Colorado’s tried to sue the EPA against the Governor’s mandate for overreaching on clean air and CO2 emissions. He may have two brain cells.

Barbara

Future Earth, Montreal
Future Earth has five hubs set-up around the world. Colorado is one of the hubs.
Future Earth Governing Council and Future Earth has affiliations with UN organizations.
http://www.futureearth.org/who-we-are
Fonds de recherche du Quebec, Feb.13, 2015
Global Secretariat of Future Earth composed of five global hubs
For more information:
http://www.frq.gouv.qc.ca/en/others/news
Scroll down to: Feb.13, 2015 – Future Earth article.
Explains how this was set up.

Barbara

Future Earth – History
Future Earth & ICUS/International Council for Science. (Time- frame c.2013-2015).
http://www.futureearth.org/history > “Transition Team” > ICUS (archived information) > Future Earth, Engagement Committee and the Science Committee
http://www.futureearth.org/history, > Page bottom, “Transition Team” > ICUS website.
Future Earth Interim Engagement Committee included:
Robert Tony Watson, Chair.
Andrew Revkin, writes Dot Earth at/for the NYT
Future Earth Science Committee included:
Mark Stafford Smith, Chair.

Oh my – it is incredible how nice ugly things may seem:
“The need for a coordinated scientific and societal response to global environmental change was highlighted at the 2012 Planet under Pressure conference. The conference declaration called for a new approach to research that is more integrative, international and solutions-oriented, reaches across existing research programmes and disciplines, and has input from governments, civil society, local knowledge, research funders and the private sector. This call was echoed in the Rio+20 declaration and the United Nations Secretary General’s Global Sustainability Panel report, with the latter calling for a major global scientific initiative to strengthen the interface between policy and science. Future Earth is a response to these statements and calls.”
I´m out of words – here is a take from one who wasn´t:
“Aestheticism and radicalism must lead us to jettison reason, and to replace it by a desperate hope for political miracles. This irrational attitude which springs from intoxication with dreams of a beautiful world is what I call Romanticism. It may seek its heavenly city in the past or in the future; it may preach ‘back to nature’ or ‘forward to a world of love and beauty’; but its appeal is always to our emotions rather than to reason. Even with the best intentions of making heaven on earth it only succeeds in making it a hell – that hell which man alone prepares for his fellow-men.”
― Karl Popper, The Open Society and its Enemies
http://www.fineart.no/i/img_img/1013308-0.jpg/w=450,h=325/Pushwagner_-_They_are_asleep.jpg

“Future Earth seeks to pioneer new approaches to international research bringing together many disciplines around a common research agenda.”
And that is the problem – true science don´t have one agenda – true science have two agendas: Openness and Scrutiny. A truly scientific enterprise would have as it main missions to: Foster any idea – and – Expose all ideas to the fiercest struggle for survival.

Barbara

Another link:
Future Earth Interim Engagement Committee: October 2013 to December 2014
Interim Engagement Committee included: Andrew Revkin.
http://www.futureearth.org/interim-engagement-committee

Climate Heretic

I know nit picking but, reference 7 is not highlighted.
Regards
Climate Heretic

JohnWho

OK, so at least some AG’s have the best interest of the Country and its Constitution at heart.
Also, I strongly suspect that it would be easier to show fraud being committed by supporters of CAGW than those who do not support CAGW.

One has to be careful with the use of that word in the warmunist context. In common, criminal, and statutory (e.g. Securities) law there have to be 5 “f****” elements. (NY Martin Act requires only 1 and 2). 1. A misrepresentation or omission of fact. 2. The misrepresentation or omission was material. 3. It was deliberate (‘scienter’). 4. It was relied upon by the other party. 5. It caused ascertainable real harm.
Now consider Al Gore and Inconvenient Truth. Who is the other party? Consider Hansen’s future sea level claims. We don’t know yet whether that is a misrepresentation. Consider wind intermitency. Might be an omission, but if so is not material until penetration is high (about 10% depending on the rest of the generation mix). See, its all grey.
The reason the Clean Power AG’s will fail is that they are trying to apply well established “f” law to a place it does not and was never intended to fit. The reason the tobacco RICO succeeded was that the legal “f” concept fit quite nicely. 1. Tobacco was healthy (misrepresentation)/ or is not harmful (omission). 2. Material since millions have died of tobacco induced lung cancer and COPD. 3. Plenty of evidence from subpoenas and discovery that #1 was definitely deliberate on the part of Big Tobacco. 4. Smokers ‘relied’ on 1. In the 1980’s and 1990’s that was a credible argument, but the weakest link. Smoking is addictive, but quitable with sufficient motivation. No longer true about reliance, and a number of damages cases have been rejected on reliance grounds. After the truth came out, after RICO, you did not quit. No longer Big Tobacco’s fault. 5. Damages include millions of deaths and hundreds of billions of medical expenses.
Now, try to do the same 1-5 for CAGW. Impossible. The warmunists do not understand this distinction, and it will contribute to their downfall.

Correct – several of the Grant paid Scientists and Non Profits have been taken to courts across the land – one scientist was accused of stealing over $ 1,000,000 in research grants?

Ironargonaut

Number 5 no longer applies. They were just allowed to sue based on future harm. Ie Recent suit in Eugene OR highlighted on this site.

Reality Observer

The nice thing is – try to do the same 1-5 for alarmism. All five are satisfied. How many millions of plaintiffs could be combined into a class action, also? Anyone who has a “renewable energy” surcharge on their electric bill…

TA

Very good summary of the case, ristvan.

Craig Loehle

My father told me and I have heard elsewhere that even in the 1940s cigarettes were called coffin nails. So the danger was widely known. Thus I think even the tobacco settlement was bad law.

Just a TAX that the tobacco companies do not pay – pass through.
The same as energy tax and carbon tax – just a way to get more money to buy votes.

Resourceguy

Thanks you for the push back. It was starting to look like a different country with a different set of values and a certain meanness.

Resourceguy

Thank you

rabbit

I am still stupefied that state Attornies General — presumably all smart, accomplished, rational people — would use their offices in such a overtly political manner, thus dragging themselves and the justice system into disrepute and taking a massive bite out of constitutionally protected rights.
It is shameful.

GaryD.

That is what AGs do to get the publicity so they can run for governor and then senate or president. It is a very political office.

Robert W Turner

Yes and having the Bar Association get involved wouldn’t work out too well for their career in the justice system.

blcjr

A prime example of this — AG being a political office — is the career of Bill Clinton. He used it as a stepping stone to Governor, and then to President. As AG, he went after the utilities in his state. As Governor, he became more conciliatory. I don’t know this, but in running for President, he probably took contributions from them. Clinton’s successor as AG, Steve Clark, tried to use the office the same way, but wasn’t as adept as Slick Willy and when he tried to run for Governor he was indicted for misuse of state funds and resigned as AG. He was eventually convicted. So yes, AG is a political office.
Still, I’m happy to see the current Arkansas AG on the list of signatories to this push back against the “Clean Power” AG’s.

TA

“I am still stupefied that state Attornies General — presumably all smart, accomplished, rational people”
A person can be smart, accomplished and rational and still be immoral.

John Harmsworth

Sociopathic.

MarkW

If there is no punishment for misbehavior, and in states where the legislature is dominated by Democrats there isn’t, then there is no reason not to politicize the office. So long as it benefits the Democrats and your career.

Bubba Cow

be good to shine a light on them, maybe punishment enough as this guy is not going up for public review –
http://ethanallen.org/6-17-16-what-is-ag-sorrell-hiding/

Attorneys, not attornies.

would use their offices in such a overtly political manner, thus dragging themselves and the justice system into disrepute and taking a massive bite out of constitutionally protected rights.

You shouldn’t be surprised; here in the commonwealth of Massachusetts it’s practically a tradition. Look at what several attorneys general here did to the poor Amiraults, who were clearly innocent of any crime.

joel

Never, never, expect decency from a Democrat. They are smug. Arrogant. Determined to win. Truth is not important. Facts don’t matter. Winning is all.

Rabbit: You mean the Democrat activist AGs with their public circuses of trying to force confessions and silence from fossil fuel companies and skeptical interests? A plan hatched at meetings with green advocacy groups.
The AGs above explicitly defined what the activist AGs are doing to the legal system, Constitution and Bill of Rights. The above AGs clearly defined what happens going forward if the activists pursue harming careers, silencing research while preaching doom and disaster.
The AGs who signed the above letter clarified that illegal collusion to profit, destroy or harm others falls under the RICO act.
Which group is known for ostracizing research scientists who fail to toe the climate team approved line?
Which group openly advocates for imprisoning skeptics?
Which group has failed to keep their own members from openly taking joy when skeptics pass on?
Which group tolerates members who refuse to follow scientific protocol; e.g. sharing data and code?
Which group tolerates research filled with weasel words yet almost zero science?

Don’t be, you have to be really smart to do really stupid things, average people just don’t have the mental horsepower to get to world-class stupidity.

JohnWho

I just used the f-word (fr**d) word in at post and it appears to be in “moderation”.
Odd that this happens in a tread that has the word in the title.

JohnWho

Ok, nevermind – I’ve cleared moderation.
A great burden has been lifted.

John Harmsworth

So your previous claim was f……..t?

Reality Observer

Ah, that must be what happened to mine, too. Sad when one cannot use the only word that applies to the antics of these people.

TA

You can use the word, it just takes a while for your post to work its way to the thread when you do.

markl

It’s about time someone/anyone in the government speaks up for the skeptics’ side.

TA

The Skeptics are not outnumbered, it just seems that way some times, because the Leftwing News Media constantly promotes the Alarmist line.

The greens have far more to lose. The corruption they posit must exist among those who are skeptical of their religion appears to me to be partially based on their assuming that skeptics are organized similarly to the way the CAGW-credulous are organized, with an eco system funded by government grants, well heeled green ‘charities’ and, of course, slush funds such as the Tides foundation. They are bought and paid for, and believe those who oppose them must also be bought and paid for.

LarryD

Projection, at lest in part. And, of course, extrapolation from their own experience, which says a lot about their milieu. And it has been part of the Progressive mindset for far too long, that there cannot be any honest disagreement with their dogma, their opponents must be evil or crazy, or both.
But as Dr. Mann found out the hard way, bringing disagreements into court opens you up to a whole new level of risk. The defendants get access to the discovery process, too. And lying on the stand has legal penalties, I’d love to see how many AGW advocates change their tune under cross-examination.

Inductivists up against the invisible bond of skepticism, eventually – inductivists will loose.

Why is Indiana not represented here. This needs to be investigated! Time to stand up or get out of the race!

Climate Heretic

Simply turn around and attack the warmists viciously like, ‘Steyn vs Mann’ or as ristvan put it yesterday[1], but along similar lines. Every time they open their mouths, without hesitation.
Regards
Climate Heretic
[1] ristvan comment

John Harmsworth

I agree completely. One of the most corrupt, dishonest and morally indefensible political actions I have ever seen. No way this should be allowed to slide.

Latitude

Didn’t someone go to jail for not predicting a earthquake or volcano? something like that

Dan Harrison
MarkW

I believe that the scientists in question gave assurances that there would be no earthquake.
If they had simply said, we don’t know, there wouldn’t have been a problem.

Very well reasoned letter. Contrasting Exxon and SolarCity climate risk factors or lack thereof is a nice touch. Just as the House Science oversight committee (Rep. Lamar Smith) is onto NOAA Karlization and Shukla double dipping NSF funds, perhaps the House Judiciary committee can take this up. Put a few AG’s in a televised House investigatory hearing. Put the screws on Walker and Healey. Expose the Scripps meeting in 2012. Pure NGO green strategy. Expose the bias in the supposed ‘documents’ put out by what amounts to a Rockefeller Foundation PR machine pretending to be an investigative website. Point out that Healey’s 40 year subpoena of CIP and founder Epstein is to an entity only 5 years old, founded by someone only 36 years old, with no connections to Exxon whatsoever, because Epstein wrote a book philosophically in favor of fossil fuels given their many benefits. Unthoughtful and clearly without probable cause fishing, violation of 1st amendment.

TA

Bring ole Al Gore before the Judiciary committee.
What’s your part in this conspiracy, Al? You leading it or just a member? What makes you think you can shut people up, Al?

John Harmsworth

The real juice is on Hillary’s unofficial server. Give my right arm on that one!

Craig Loehle

The SEC rules on disclosing regulatory risks apply in spades to renewables companies. For example, in some European countries, they have recently completely put the brakes on new windmill construction. Other places have let various subsidies dry up. These arbitrary and sudden changes in policy can put such a company out of business in a month. As the letter mentions, they don’t disclose this but legally must do so. In contrast, Exxon did do disclosures.

What disclosures did Exxon do? Do you have links?
I have been advocating shareholder lawsuits against Exxon Mobil management, for not dealing properly with regulatory risks that would follow from either the truth OR falsity of CO2 catastrophism. It’s not even clear that Exxon Mobil management has kept abreast of the unraveling of the catastrophist narrative, though I’d be shocked if that were, in fact, the case.
IMO, a competent management would certainly have stayed on top of scientific developments. Furthermore, if they came to the conclusion that the CO2 catastrophists are correct, they should have been working hard to transition out of fossil fuels, to something that would survive anticipated regulatory scrutiny. OTOH, if they came to the conclusion that the CO2 catastrophists were loons, then they should have educated the public as to what the science actually says, and to what degree of certainty it can say it with.
I’d be most interested in viewing Exxon Mobil’s “disclosures”, provided they’re not so thick with legalese that they’d confuse me, or take took long to read.

All the financials are in the SEC filings and the financial CPA audits . . so there will be a lot to read. The main point is that there is no way that we can eliminate fossil fuels for 100 years. Technology does no move that fast and there is always the old issue of cost benefit trade offs.

@profitup10
I suspect those “disclosures” of regulatory risks were only short-term; i.e., I suspect those disclosures made no reference to science (or only cursory references), and instead focused on impending laws, regulations, and regulatory hearings.
Certainly, if those “disclosures” DID reference climate science, in a significant way, I would think both CO2 catastrophists and CO2 realists would have propagated knowledge about such disclosures to the blogosphere.
If I was an Exxon Mobil shareholder, I would not just be concerned about short-term regulatory risks; I’d be MORE concerned about long-term risks, and how to mitigate them.
If I believed that the company I owned shares in was killing the planet, I’d want to know how that company was going to transition to a less planet-killing means of energy production. And if I believed that the company I owned shares in was falsely maligned, due to craptastic science prostituted to a globalist, political agenda, then I’d wonder where the publc education program was, to destroy such a company-killing adversary, and punish the careers of opportunistic politicians who preferred power to truth.
What do you think? If I tracked down those SEC filings and CPA audits, would the reference state of the art climate science research?

Maybe this will help . .
Dr. Patrick Moore sent me this last week, and after reading it, I agree with him in his initial note to me that
This is probably the most important paper I will ever write.
Moore looks at the historical record of CO2 in our atmosphere and concludes that we came dangerously close to losing plant life on Earth about 18,000 years ago, when CO2 levels approached 150 ppm, below which plant life can’t sustain photosynthesis. He notes:
A 140 million year decline in CO2 to levels that came close to threatening the survival of life on Earth can hardly be described as “the balance of nature”.

Paul Westhaver

With so many signatures, I would say the AG’s themselves are involved in a conspiracy to limit free speech.
That is RICO prosecute-able if you ask me.
They will be fired soon enough.

Criminal under 18USC241, the civil rights ‘KuKluxKan’ Act. Civil under 42USC1893 and/or 1895.
Not RICO. But somebody injured has to go after them using those existing laws. CEI? Epstein? Probably not Exxon.

No – they are not. They are saying: Stop what you are doing – or we will do the same.
Or – the United States of America will soon be a totalitarian state.

Climate Heretic

Send a copy of these comments to Exxon and Alex Epstein
Regards
Climate Heretic

Exxon’s court responses have been brilliant. A joy for this non-practicing lawyer to read. And my specific suggestions yesterday to Epstein have alrady been sent via a link to my comments about Healey’s subpoena on yesterday’s thread. I even gave him my Mass Bar license number and a way to contact me to strategize pro bono if he wishes. Least I could do on this outrage.

Good on you.

🙂 🙂 🙂

stan stendera

+1,000,000

Felflames

/salute
An honourable act.
You set a good example to follow.

Climate Heretic

Thank you ristvan
Regards
Climate Heretic

John Harmsworth

I think the defence of his philosophy is a moral issue for Epstein. Those of us in a position to help should be prepared to do so.

Resourceguy

I would be concerned for the states not signing on. Are they not concerned by the implications of free speech erosion or extermination in this case at the hands of this obvious collusion with donor advocacy groups. A new round of required ethics classes is needed in law schools and judge appointments, including Constitutional Law. How do you go about recalling unethical AGs anyway?

TA

State AGs would have to be removed from office by their respective States.
State AG’s can also be voted out of office at the next State election.

Here is one courageous attempt, by honorable Judge: Andrew Scott Hanen, to start rectifying the unfortunate culture in the Department of Justice:
The state of Texas et all against the United States of America
The whole court order is well worth a read. For those who are short of time, here is my summary.
If United States Attorney General, Loretta lynch, had any cojones she could have made a difference – I doubt she will.

Bruce Cobb

Hoist by their own petard. Again. Delicious. Hand me the popcorn.

Resourceguy

It’s also time go after them legislatively. The budget for Federal snow removal funds to states needs to be erased. Congress controls the money.

Sadly the UNEP/IPCC are probably well outside their jurisdiction.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2794991

Well, there is an angle here too. UNFCCC admitted Palestine as a full member. There is an existing US law saying any UN entity recognizing Palestine s a state has all US funding cut off (previous Eschenbach post here). UNESCO didmthat same previously, and had its US funding cut off. IPCC is a creature of UNFCCC. Just need someone to require Obama to follow the letter of existing law.

PiperPaul

require Obama to follow the letter of existing law
That’s pretty funny.

TA

ristvan wrote: “just need someone to require Obama to follow the letter of existing law.”
Or wait about seven more months for regime change.

Thanks for the link, one page into it I think it provides valuable insights:
“However, the greater problem at the UN … involves a structural weakness that allows it to grow at will by creating new agencies and programs and thereby to amass and abuse ever increasing amounts of taxpayer funds without constraints (Schaefer, 2012). Funding is approved by the UN General Assembly where the vast majority of members are not donor countries.”
I think the following document by United Nations Economic commission for Europe illustrates the problem:
LAMA / ALPACA MEAT CARCASES AND CUTS
By its charter United Nations was supposed to:
– To maintain international peace and security…
– To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of people
– To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character,
– To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.
It seems to me that United Nations is far out of line with it´s charter.
“The UN was not created to take mankind to heaven, but to save humanity from hell.”
— Dag Hammarskjöld, Secretary-General from 1953 to 1961

commieBob

Moncktonesque
I enjoyed reading that a lot. 🙂

Moncktonesque – that´s a new word which really meant something to me. 🙂

I´m so relieved. I hope that we eventually will be able to have a civilized and respectful exchange of proper arguments regarding.
I also hope that nations will eventually start to scrutinize United Nations. In my view United Nations is a looming threat – unelected bureaucrats endorsing the politicized scientific method. We should never forget that United Nations caused this mess.

Correction – should have been: … regarding climate change.

markl

Science or Fiction commented: “…We should never forget that United Nations caused this mess….”
+1 And all in the name of “wealth redistribution”. Even they have admitted as such. Blatantly lying to advance their ideology.

MarkW

To quote some ideological colleagues of mine:
Get the US out of the UN and the UN out of the US.

SMC

But without the US, the UN would collapse… Oh wait, hmmmm…I’m trying to figure out what the downside to that is… I’m sure I’ll think of something… eventually.

IMO, the UN and the alarmists want a global tax on life itself [carbon] – it is all about the money look at Al Gore . . super rich now and not one proven warming event.

auralay

Did anyone else pick up on this passage?
“As our colleagues must know, a vigorous debate exists in this country regarding the risks of climate change and the appropriate response to those risks. Both sides are well-funded and sophisticated public policy participants. ”
One failing of the skeptics is to make the public understand the vast asymmetry in funding and resources, hugely benefiting the alarmist machine.

emsnews

The alarmists all have public money to play with! All others must fund their own work and efforts.

PiperPaul

And it’s the best kind of money – extracted via law.

I cannot imagine that any side – in any controversy – can possibly be better funded than the side propounding United Nations climate ideas.

Dan Harrison

Maybe those of us in states that have not signed onto this letter should write letters to our representatives insisting that they get onboard or be replaced as elected officials.

That will help. Go for it.

Barbara Skolaut

My idiot AG didn’t sign on with the other warmist over-reaching AGs (yet), but he’s of the same mind. >:-(

Just what America needs right now, more garbage to cause people to draw lines in the sand.

MarkW

The lines were drawn a long, long time ago.
I’m surprised you haven’t noticed.
Trolls only whine about conflict when their victims start to fight back.

PiperPaul

+97 Elons.

PiperPaul

“Not fair! Do over! I demand a do over!”

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7

This should leave some skid marks, although I bet not a peep will be hear from the MSM. I particularly liked their second point (AGs have aligned themselves with the target’s competition, references 7-10). Looks to be a major blunder to have had them on the same stage at the press conference. In effect the AGs have admitted their aim is to aid one segment of the energy market by suppressing a competing segment.

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7

I think it’s fair to say the AGs have “Shuklad” themselves.

AW7, a great new verb. Karlize data, Shukla yourself. You are on a roll.

teaparty1776

>In effect the AGs have admitted their aim is to aid one segment of the energy market by suppressing a competing segment
Crony fascism!
If the AGs hid their collusion, it would be criminal. But publicizing it causes it to be, allegedly, legal!

MarkW

“Both sides are well-funded and sophisticated public policy participants”
I’m going to have to disagree with that statement.
It has been shown that the alarmist side receives several orders of magnitude more funding than does the skeptic side.

poitsplace

No kidding. There are massive misinformation campaigns by places like ClimateNexus. And they are completely aware that there is no science to support the notion that, for example, extreme weather (their big selling point) is the result of climate change. Indeed, they seem aware that for many claims, actual evidence often points in the polar opposite direction (as it does with hurricanes). Hundreds of millions of dollars per year going to people that are just blatantly lying to push their political policies.

hunter

The grownups are starting to wake up.

JEM

Tom Perkins was an early investor in a company whose growth allows me to sit here on my backside and type this without worrying TOO much about where my next meal is coming from, but his more recent pronouncements leave me thinking that someone needs to rattle his cage a bit.

A major characteristic of basic propaganda is demonizing and silencing dissenting voices.

Free Speech is the rule and no AG’s should violate the freedom of speech, if they do they are violating the US Constitution and should be removed from office.

Bad Lawyers in the DOJ . . you can not sue science [opinion] for fraud. They do not understand the limits of the Constitution.

Mark Johnson

Kudos to Alaska Attorney General Richards for signing on to this letter.

I didn’t see my AG from Florida listed.
Maybe she’s busy trying to find more bad guys Obama let in from the religion of piece.
I think I’ll let her slide this week.

jeanparisot

I wish I could live to see a similar statement for the Head of SEC enforcement.

Wim Röst

Living in Europe, I was extremely astonished by the fact that in the US Attorney Generals could present themselves as “AGs United for Clean Power”. Here in Europe any judge and more especially Attorney Generals ought to avoid ANY appearance of bias.
Fortunately the above letter emphasizes an equal treatment of parties and a non intervention from the side of Attorney Generals in a discussion which needs to be as open as possible.
This is what the US needs. Attorney Generals without any appearance of bias. And an administration that doesn’t interfere in a scientific debate. That debate has to be as open and free as possible.

“Attorney Generals without any appearance of bias.” @Wim Röst
That was once the case, also with the IRS, but as our tendency to elect disbarred lawyers and lawyers who have voluntarily surrendered their licences to practice law went up, the concern over the appearance of bias went down.

Bill Illis

There are certainly 362 billion more reasons to investigate the alarmists than the skeptics. (362 billion being the amount of money spent on climate change research and green energy last year).
Nothing is going to change in this debate until there are consequences for those exaggerating / adjusting data to suit their purpose. Right now, the only consequence the alarmists have to face is their conscience (which is not a big deal when your wallet is fat and your prestige/awards/promotions just get stronger every day).

Felflames

It would seem these AGs understand the reason Justice carries a two edged sword.
It is about time someone put the other edge to use.

Gerald Machnee

Am I not correct in stating that Al Gore and others have already admitted to exaggerating the risks in order to state their case. just check the media reports. You do not need to subpoena 40 years of e-mails.Forward that to the Democratic Attorneys.

You do not need to subpoena 40 years of e-mails.

The 40 years of emails would be funny if it wasn’t so sadly ignorant. Forty years ago was 1976. While large companies back then might have had electronic messaging on the mainframes, it is doubtful they would still have those messages. It would be foolish for a company like Exon Mobil to maintain documents beyond what is legally required. Retention policy depends on the document classification. In the U.S. financial documents have to be kept for 7 years (think it is 10 years in Europe). All other documents that I know of have shorter required retention periods.

Bubba Cow

It is coming to a boil in Vermont – currently suit against AG in Washington Superior Court, Vermont – and championed again by E and E Legal and General Council, David Schnare. Thank you, thank you!
The AGs office may well have f***** up – “a request for documents was made on May 10 but not responded to by the extended deadline of May 24 — the longest extension allowable under Vermont law”. Previous FOIA docs revealed that the meeting in New York in March was “co-sponsored by Schneiderman and Sorrell”. Sorrell is Vermont’s AG.
http://watchdog.org/268123/vermont-attorney-general-sued-for-public-records/?roi=echo3-35255799960-35941305-aa006f00f2ef8fb5ee6a75020d5e18a9

Wim Röst

Living in Europe, I was extremely astonished by the fact that in the US Attorneys General could present themselves as “AGs United for Clean Power”. Here in Europe any judge and more especially Attorneys General ought to avoid ANY appearance of bias.
Fortunately this letter emphasizes an equal treatment of parties and a non intervention from the side of Attorneys General in a discussion which needs to be as open as possible.
This is what the US needs. Attorneys General without any appearance of bias. And an administration that doesn’t interfere in a scientific debate. That debate has to be as open and free as possible.
(my comment of half an hour ago disappeared after posting it – so once again)

SMC

The Sate and Federal Government Attorneys General are political positions, in the USA. The state AG’s are elected positions. The AG of the US, currently Loretta Lynch, is a position appointed by the POTUS. It is not surprising, at all, that they would espouse a view in line with their political leanings.

John Harmsworth

Most of the democracies of the world would say that there is no room for politics in matters of legal judgement.

South River Independent

The Us Supreme Court is the most politicized legal body in the world, with the possible exception of the International Criminal Court.

Wim Röst

From the AGs’ letter: “We write to urge our colleagues to choose the second, and far superior, solution. Stop policing viewpoints.”
In fact, this means: change the system. Separate the executive, the legislative and the judicial powers. As was asked by Baron de Montesquieu around three centuries ago:
“ “He is famous for his articulation of the theory of separation of powers, which is implemented in many constitutions throughout the world. He did more than any other author to secure the place of the word despotism in the political lexicon.”*
“The administrative powers were the executive, the legislative, and the judicial. These should be separate from and dependent upon each other so that the influence of any one power would not be able to exceed that of the other two, either singly or in combination.”** “
See: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/03/ipcc-science-2-a-seperation-of-powers/
“Despotism” knows many forms. It can even take the form of “AGs United for Clean Power”. We may be very glad that the other AGs saw the danger and wrote the above letter.

@ South River Independent
The following statement was made by Noah Feldman (Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School – Whatever that means).
“Every generation gets the Constitution that it deserves. As the central preoccupations of an era make their way into the legal system, the Supreme Court eventually weighs in, and nine lawyers in robes become oracles of our national identity.”
– Noah Feldman
Might be that the ideas in the Constitution – about free speech etc. – was sound, but it also seems that the system which was made to protect it against the ruling policy is lousy.

yarpos

Its great that the political climate is such that these AGs feel they can speak up.

SMC

Yep but, still have to be careful. The 2nd amendment is under assault… again. After Orlando, talk of repeal of the 2nd has gained some traction, even if it is unlikely to go anywhere, yet. If the 2nd amendment is repealed, the 1st will quickly follow.

South River Independent

The Amendment does not grant the right to keep and bear arms, which pre-existed the Constitution, it only protects it. It will be interesting to see how many sheeple there are if the 2nd Amendment is ever repealed.

There will be no repeal of the 1st or 2nd amendment. There are 99 State chambers and it only takes 13 to kill the amendment. Article V is very difficult to use – as the Founders intended.

SteveC

Are there really this many lawyers sitting around with nothing better to do?

SMC

Apparently.

JohnWho

Well, these lawyers are actually doing something – reacting to the other lawyers who clearly have stepped in a pile of something that has an unpleasant odor.

SMC

True. And a good thing. At least some of our elected officials still believe in the Constitution.

“Once the government begins policing viewpoints, two solutions exist. The first solution is to police all viewpoints equally. Another group of Attorneys General could use the precedent established by the “AGs United for Clean Power” to investigate fraudulent statements associated with competing interests. The subpoenas currently directed at some market participants could be met with a barrage of subpoenas directed at other market participants. No doubt a reasonable suspicion exists regarding a number of statements relating to the risks of climate change …. ”
It might be that this last section is misunderstood by me, but it seems to me that the second possible solution is never identified in that section – the solution which has so far been unthinkable in the United States of America – a totalitarian solution.
In other words – it is not a possible solution that the Republican Attorney generals are not going to to take action if they have to.
Seems like a bit more sophisticated way to say: “Fuck off, fascists”
“It can’t happen here” is always wrong: a dictatorship can happen anywhere.”
― Karl Popper, Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography

SMC

The second solution is revolution or civil war…same difference.

The AG’s second solution is the next paragraph:
“We write to urge our colleagues to choose the second, and far superior, solution. Stop policing viewpoints.”
If you don’t, we have Kleiner Perkins in our sights. Do you really want us to dispose Al Gore?

Thanks – I overlooked that next paragraph.
I would say that to stop policing viewpoints is the only outcome which deserve to be referred to as a solution. Many kinds of evil will emerge from all other possible outcomes.
And, that´s the only outcome which will be in accordance with the Constitution of United States – “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech” – the Constitution all taking the Oath of Office has sworn to support and defend against foreign and domestic enemies – the oath too many must have failed to live up to in this case.

TA

“Do you really want us to dispose Al Gore?”
I do! 🙂 I would love to see that. It would definitely be worth the price of admission.
And Al is probably the biggest conspirator of them all, so someone should bring him in for questioning. He was “front and center” in this latest conspiracy, and has more name recognition than anyone there, and he is not an AG.

Do you have a time preference on Sunday?
Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone

Seems to be the wrong address.

Are you setting up a nooner???
If so, I’ll cue up the music: “Afternoon Delight”.

Amber

It is nice to know their are AG’s who understand and support the right to free speech and expression .
Well done !
The AG witch hunter lobbyist’s seeking to silence and intimidate by threatening RICO are pathetic .
Yes it cuts both ways.The earth has a fever pump and dump men have lied to influence public policy
and tax payer funding . There is no free speech issue there just outright fraud .
Who in each State authorized AG’s united as industry lobbyist’s? Lets see the paper trail that shows State legislators authorizing AG’s to act as lobbyist’s while on the governments payroll . What are the conflict of interest policies of each State with respect to people charged with the responsibility to protect the public interest that become lobbyist’s for an industry ? How did they hook up with Al Gore ?

Kurt

I’m going to combine two prior comments to remark on them because one is relevant to answer the second.
First, “Rabbit” commented that
“I am still stupefied that state Attorn[eys] General — presumably all smart, accomplished, rational people — would use their offices in such a[n] overtly political manner . . . ”
Then “auralay” commented:
“Did anyone else pick up on this passage?
‘As our colleagues must know, a vigorous debate exists in this country regarding the risks of climate change and the appropriate response to those risks. Both sides are well-funded and sophisticated public policy participants. ‘
One failing of the skeptics is to make the public understand the vast asymmetry in funding and resources, hugely benefiting the alarmist machine.”
What I picked up by the passage just quoted was little different – the precise, critically thought-out statement of the issue of climate change, i.e. a debate about the risks of climate change and the appropriate response to those risks. Those hyperventilating about global warming are emotionally or intellectually incapable of debating those issues. Instead, they rail against a straw man argument that somehow skeptics deny the existence of CO2-induced climate change entirely, rather than the amount of it, or what downstream impacts will be, costs of mitigation, etc.
Thus, “Rabbit” is, I think, wrong to presume that all state Attorneys General are “smart, accomplished, rational people.” Those who penned the letter in the main post have certainly demonstrated themselves to be, but I have personally never seen or heard anything from Kamala Harris, for example, evincing that she is a “smart” or “rational” person, and certainly with respect to this climate change nonsense, she and her other colleagues bringing these RICO investigations lack those qualities.

“Both sides are well-funded and sophisticated public policy participants. ‘”
BS. I think that the CAGW people ie. university professors, etc. are getting billions of $s while the skeptics are maybe getting maybe millions at the most. That’s a thousand times more for the global warming crowd…

rogerthesurf

“Similarly, it has been asserted that “fossil fuel companies” may have funded non- profits who minimized the risks of climate change. 6 Does anyone doubt that “clean energy” companies have funded non-profits who exaggerated the risks of climate change?”
Great phrase.
The people who drafted this letter are a lot smarter than their opposition. A great response!
I will watch closely for any developments in this area.
Great post!
Cheers
Roger http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.com

David A

It should be pointed out that the small funding from and for skeptics in general goes to “private” organizations supporting their viewpoint with NO demand for funding from anyone, whereas CAGW funding is massively government and tax based, and this simply means everyone is required to pay for all damages instituted from CAGW alarmism and extreme exaggeration, demanding global political change backed by the FORCE of government. (I would think different and more severe standards should apply to the CAGW alarmists who knowingly and continually lie about CAGW.)

rogerthesurf

Agreed, in fact it could be classified as government abusing its powers.
Cheers
Roger

ImranCan

Truly excellent letter.

Johann Wundersamer

Thumps up!