Is Attorneys’ General Mischief just the Tip of the Iceberg?

Guest essay by Leo Goldstein

The recent escalation of rogue Attorneys General persecuting conservative political organizations and their real or alleged supporters suggests that Climate Alarmism has been playing a much wider role in politics than it seemed. The Left has been riding Climate Alarmism to muzzle and defund its opponents since at least 2000. Following the infamous Tobacco Precedent, the Left has declared a broad range of conservative, libertarian, and Republican organizations as front groups for “fossil fuels,” and threatened their donors and supporters with civil action or even criminal persecution. The climate alarmists do not even hide their aspiration for unlimited political power. One of many examples is a declaration by 350.org: “We think the climate crisis is about power”. Few months ago I wrote about progressive defunding of climate realists and real science. But the recent barrage of subpoenas, combined with other accumulated evidence, suggests that Climate Alarmism has caused and/or been used for an unprecedented campaign of political suppression, running for more than 15 years.

Apparently, the extreme Left bought the Democratic Party in 2004, and openly boasted about it: “Now it’s our Party: we bought it, we own it, and we’re going to take it back.” Neither party in this transaction has denied or retracted this well-documented and publicized statement. This purchase was financed in part by Quantum Hedge Funds, which is domiciled in the Netherlands Antilles and/or Cayman Islands, and is personified by George Soros. Since then, everyone involved has actively used the property that changed hands to persecute conservatives under the pretext of countering climate change.

Their modus operandi can be observed as follows:

1) Hostile foreign entities and their domestic accomplices compile lists of individuals and/or organizations that they want to muzzle and/or destroy for any reason. The political targets are invariably conservatives, libertarians, and Republicans. Other targets include vital industries and defense, but those campaigns are beyond the scope of this article.

2) These lists are merged, sorted, and truncated to obtain an actionable target list.

3) The targets on the list are declared “climate deniers,” industry shills, and so on. Their names are publicized and smeared. Their friends and supporters are intimidated.

4) Finally, the targets list is handed down to the purchased congresspersons and government officials, who persecute them by abusing the power of their offices.

An infamous January 2013 “study” by Robert Brulle (Drexel University) entitled Institutionalizing delay: foundation funding and the creation of U.S. climate change counter-movement organizations, broadly promoted by government agencies and the media, gives us an insight into this process. Among other things, Mr. Brulle [compiled] a target list of allegedly climate change counter-movement organizations (CCCM) organizations. This “study” was immediately debunked and ridiculed, so I want to highlight just one aspect of it: most of the targeted political organizations and think tanks did not have any substantial links to either climate debates or energy industries. The list, containing 118 targets, is reproduced below. Organizations that were included solely for their broadly conservative political views (to the best of my knowledge) are in bold.

60 Plus

  1. Advancement Of Sound Science Center Inc. The
  2. Alliance For Climate Strategies (ACS)
  3. American Coal Foundation
  4. American Coalition For Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE)
  5. American Conservative Union Foundation
  6. American Council For Capital Formation
  7. American Council For Capital Formation Center For Policy Research
  8. American Energy Alliance/Institute For Energy Research
  9. American Energy Freedom Center
  10. American Enterprise Institute For Public Policy Research
  11. American Farm Bureau
  12. American Friends Of The Institute Of Economic Affairs
  13. American Gas Association
  14. American Legislative Exchange Council
  15. American Natural Gas Alliance
  16. American Petroleum Institute
  17. American Policy Center
  18. American Tradition Institute
  19. Americans For Balanced Energy Choices (ABEC)
  20. Americans For Prosperity/Americans For Prosperity Foundation
  21. Annapolis Center For Science-Based Public Policy
  22. Association Of Global Automobile Manufacturers
  23. Atlas Economic Research Foundation
  24. Capital Research Center/Greenwatch
  25. Cascade Policy Institute
  26. Cato Institute
  27. Center For The Defense Of Free Enterprise
  28. Center For The Study Of Carbon Dioxide And Global Change/CO2
  29. Chamber Of Commerce Of The United States Of America
  30. Citizen’s Coalition On Global Climate Policy
  31. Citizens For Affordable Energy
  32. Climate Audit
  33. Climate Science Coalition Of America
  34. Climate Strategies Watch
  35. CO2 Is Green
  36. Coalition For American Jobs
  37. Coalition For Vehicle Choice
  38. Coalition To Preserve American Security And Sovereignty
  39. Collegians for a Constructive Tomorrow
  40. Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow
  41. Competitive Enterprise Institute
  42. Congress Of Racial Equality
  43. Consumer Alert/National Consumer Coalition
  44. Consumer Energy Alliance
  45. Cooler Heads Coalition
  46. Cornwall Alliance For The Stewardship Of Creation
  47. Edison Electric Institute
  48. Energy Citizens
  49. Energy Makes America Great
  50. Environmental Literacy Council
  51. Federation For American Coal, Energy And Security
  52. Free Enterprise Action Institute/Free Enterprise Education Institute
  53. Freedom Action
  54. Freedom Works
  55. Freedom Works Foundation
  56. Friends Of Coal
  57. Frontiers Of Freedom Institute And Foundation
  58. George C. Marshall Institute
  59. Global Climate Coalition
  60. Global Climate Information Project
  61. Global Warming Initiative
  62. Greening Earth Society
  63. Heartland Institute
  64. Heritage Foundation
  65. Hoover Institution
  66. Hudson Institute
  67. Ice Age Now
  68. Independence Institute
  69. Independent Institute
  70. Independent Petroleum Association Of America
  71. Independent Women’s Forum
  72. Industrial Energy Consumers Of America
  73. Information Council On The Environment
  74. Institute For Biospheric Research
  75. Institute For Energy Research
  76. Institute For Liberty
  77. Institute For The Study Of Earth And Man
  78. Intermountain Rural Electric Association
  79. International Climate And Environmental Change
  80. International Climate Science Coalition
  81. International Policy Network
  82. James Madison Institute
  83. John Locke Foundation
  84. Landmark Legal Foundation
  85. Manhattan Institute For Policy Research
  86. Manhattan Libertarian Party
  87. Media Research Center
  88. Mercatus Center, George Mason University
  89. Mountain States Legal Foundation
  90. National Association Of Manufacturers
  91. National Center For Policy Analysis
  92. National Center For Public Policy Research
  93. National Mining Association
  94. National Petrochemical And Refiners Association
  95. National Petroleum Council
  96. National Rural Electric Cooperative Association
  97. National Taxpayers Union
  98. National Taxpayers Union Foundation
  99. Oklahoma Council Of Public Affairs
  100. Oregon Institute Of Science And Medicine
  101. Pacific Research Institute For Public Policy
  102. Plants Need Co2
  103. Reason Foundation/Reason Public Policy Institute
  104. Responsible Resources
  105. Science And Environment Policy Project
  106. Science And Public Policy Institute
  107. Southeastern Legal Foundation
  108. Sovereignty International
  109. State Policy Network
  110. Surface Stations. Org
  111. Texas Public Policy Foundation
  112. Thomas Jefferson Institute For Public Policy
  113. TS August/The Second Of August
  114. Washington Policy Center
  115. Western Fuels Association
  116. World Climate Report
  117. World Coal Association

Brulle’s paper is quite explicit about its target identification criteria, including conservative, libertarian, and Republican views not related to the climate debates. According to the article’s Methodological Appendix,

“To develop a comprehensive roster of CCCM organizations for this study, a two-step process was used. First, a consolidated list of all of the organizations identified in prior studies was created. This compilation resulted in a list of 538 organizations for consideration as a CCCM organization.” This long list was not revealed, but it used a list from a 1997 “study” by the Leftist National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, Moving a Public Policy Agenda: The Strategic Philanthropy of Conservative Foundations.

As you can see, even the pretense of a relation to the climate debates is missing. Alleged CCCM organizations from “studies” by the Union of Concerned Scientists (whose membership rules are so lax, dogs can be admitted as members)  and Greenpeace were added as well.

In the second step, this long list was narrowed down to 118 organizations, using opinions of Greenpeace, SourceWatch, and Wikipedia as the guiding light (“evidence that this organization is generally perceived to be part of the climate counter-movement”.) SourceWatch (originally Disinfopedia) is a project of the deceptively named Center for Media and Democracy, funded by the mentioned Quantum Hedge Funds and other usual suspects.

Oh, and one more thing: this “scholarship” was definitely funded by taxpayers’ money, in case there was any doubt.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

89 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
rah
June 19, 2016 7:15 am

It seems to me if these legal battles turn into an outright war that the skeptics should have a legal advantage from the start.
For the most part the AGs supporting the Alarmist position will be going after private organizations or concerns. But if the skeptics go after the Alarmists most of their organizations are publically funded.
Thus while the Alarmists will have to make a case for getting past the probable clause protection stipulated in the 4th amendment in order to get the records and internal communications of private organizations or concerns, the skeptics will not have to deal with that hurdle when they go after the internal communications and records of the publically funded Alarmist organizations, concerns, and individuals.

June 19, 2016 8:01 am

There are no inductive inferences.
Karl Popper.

John Robertson
June 19, 2016 9:58 am

ICEBERG?
The criminality inherent in the systemic kleptocracy of this mass hysteria concerning plant food is no tip of the iceberg stuff, it is blatant, fully orchestrated by government agencies and designed with intent.
To redistribute wealth.
From those who have to those who want more,with the bureaucracies taking a huge cut for their “services”.
Taxing air,while being accountable to no one is the dream of all professional parasites.
Harsh words perhaps, however by their own actions you will know them.
The UN affiliated persons who advocate for solutions to a problem they cannot prove the existence of, propose theft from the many, which rewards these same freeloaders.
Follow the money.
Corruption in public offices is not the “Tip of the Iceberg” it is the new normal.
A kleptocracy cannot function without these necessary deceptions.
The parasites who feed upon the mass of humanity have swollen beyond all restraint.
Their host is suffering sever distress.

Tom Anderson
June 19, 2016 1:54 pm

These are mostly unformulated thoughts but I hope they are worth considering.
Mr. Halperin’s report struck me with how the historic shift of power within the federal system, from the states to the government in Washington, makes potential takeovers from whatever quarter much easier.
An unstated, perhaps never intended, benefit of the constitutionally established tension between the states and central government is to make it harder to capture the whole American government at a stroke. That wasn’t why we kept the independent states, of course, and there was a problem at the outset.
“States Rights,” which is what I’m bringing up, has a bad name today owing to the harm done by slavery and the subsequent racial oppression under states rights. When the founders set up the nation, slavery was the cancer in the body politic. The founders passed along finding a cure as a loaded compromise that blew up with the Civil War. And while the cure was far less evil than the affliction, a major legacy has been to assist Washington DC in displacing governance by the states, via the 14th Amendment and advancing custom or indifference.
It may be time to seriously reconsider “states rights” and work to redress the federal-state balance, even if that means going back to national first principles for a radical revision. To start with, there was only a handful of tasks the founders delegated to the federal government – such as defense, diplomacy, a monetary system, and interstate commerce. The states are empowered and able (if not always willing) to deal with the rest. With reduced central government, regional and coast-to-coast issues could be handled by conventions among the states.
I don’t know if that is possible; it very likely calls for constitutional amendment and revision, always a battle, but there are possibilities and great potential benefits. Naturally, stopping any illegitimate national power grab should be the first aim, but a necessary next step should be reconstituting the balance for a government more resistant to takeover.
Is anybody thinking about this?

Reply to  Tom Anderson
June 19, 2016 2:29 pm

I think most are thinking about the Frankenstein Monster election the US is facing.

June 19, 2016 2:57 pm

I’d like to think that the Manhattan Libertarian Party is included in that list because of my articles in their Serf City street corner tabloid they published until it just became too impractical . Several of my Logic of Liberty columns concerned the eKoStatist War on CO2 .

Joel Snider
June 20, 2016 12:42 pm

Just imagine if we actually got someone in the White House that was willing to really investigate some of these ‘non-profits’ – freeze their assets, and climb up their hind-ends with a microscope?
Just think – how many years with no oversight? What would Greenpeace or the Sierra Club look like with their dirty little secrets bared to the world?