Earlier WUWT covered the closure of Britain’s Dept. of Energy and Climate Change, and yesterday we covered the shameless $2 million “please send money” ploy from UCS to bolster their coffers due to “attacks” from the House Science Committee. I’ve gone news for you clowns, a subpoena isn’t an “attack”, it is democracy with due process.
Smith Subpoenas MA, NY Attorneys General, Environmental Groups
WASHINGTON – Science, Space, and Technology Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) today issued subpoenas to New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey, and eight environmental organizations to obtain documents related to coordinated efforts to deprive companies, nonprofit organizations, scientists and scholars of their First Amendment rights.
Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas): “The attorneys general have appointed themselves to decide what is valid and what is invalid regarding climate change. The attorneys general are pursuing a political agenda at the expense of scientists’ right to free speech.
“The Committee has a responsibility to protect First Amendment rights of companies, academic institutions, scientists, and nonprofit organizations. That is why the Committee is obligated to ask for information from the attorneys general and others.
“Unfortunately, the attorneys general have refused to give the committee the information to which it is entitled. What are they hiding? And why?”
Energy Subcommittee Chairman Randy Weber (R-Texas): “Since when did it become a crime to express or hold an opinion? The difference of opinions is what makes our country so strong and unique. It’s this freedom without censorship or restraint that helped build our country. However, this posse of attorneys general believe that those whose opinion, or scientific research, conflicts with the alleged consensus view on climate change should be the subject of investigation and prosecution by government officials – talk about a chilling effect on free speech.”
Space Subcommittee Chairman Brian Babin (R-Texas): “Since March, these attorneys general have attempted to use questionable legal tactics to force the production of documents and communications from a broad group of scientists, companies, and non-profit organizations. These actions are an attempt to chill the scientific research of those who do not support the attorneys’ general and environmental groups’ political positions.
“These actions amount to a political attack rather than a serious inquiry based on the law. Today’s action by the Science Committee and Chairman Smith sustains the commitment to protect the First Amendment rights of the individuals and groups targeted by the attorneys general and environmental activists.”
Rep. Darin LaHood (R-Ill.): “Instead of pursuing real threats to America, these attorneys general are going down a path of partisan politics and attacking people who disagree with their conclusions about climate change. The administration has attempted to avoid all debate on climate change by circumventing Congress and signing international agreements without the consent of the Senate, and it now appears that Democratic attorneys general are following the president’s lead.
“If the debate on climate change is settled, the environmental activists and state attorneys general should have no problem convincing the American public with their own evidence and arguments. Why go to such great lengths to squash differing opinions and anyone who questions their conclusions? These individuals, scientists, and organizations have the right to conduct research, form their own opinions, and voice those opinions.”
Rep. Warren Davidson (R-Ohio): “Instead of upholding the constitution, protecting citizens, and putting real criminal behind bars, these attorneys general are using taxpayer dollars to manufacture charges to send a political message. This demonstrates a clear deviation from the legal duties of an attorney general and the possible abuse of discretionary judgement. It is not the job of the attorneys general to decide what science should be conducted, and their actions indicate their intent is to silence certain voices.”
Chairman Smith followed up the subpoenas with a press conference on Capitol Hill this afternoon.
On July 6, Chairman Smith sent letters to the individuals and organizations subpoenaed today reiterating his May 18 and June 20 requests for documents and communications, setting a deadline for those documents as July 13 (today) at 12:00 p.m., and threatening the use of compulsory process pending their compliance with the requests. The attorneys general and environmental groups have refused to comply with the committee’s investigation at every step.
UCS Subpoenaed—Help Us Stand with Science
Dear UCS supporter,
House Science Committee Chairman Lamar Smith has a history of attacking climate scientists—and now he’s coming after UCS with a congressional subpoena. He wants to silence our efforts to hold ExxonMobil accountable for deceiving the public and shareholders about the reality and risks of climate change. We will continue to speak out against corporate deception, and provide law enforcement with the scientific expertise and public support they need to hold ExxonMobil accountable.
But we can’t do this alone. Will you stand with us?
Please join the open statement from concerned citizens who oppose Chairman Smith’s attempts to silence free speech and support efforts to hold ExxonMobil accountable for its climate deception.
You can also read more about our response to the subpoena here.
Sincerely,
Kathryn Mulvey
Climate Accountability Campaign Manager
Climate and Energy Program
Union of Concerned Scientists
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Pedantry alert: It’s “Attorneys General”, not “Attorney Generals”. See Lamar Smith’s headline.
Nope its English, Attorney Generals is the plural. Simple.
Well Webster says either or. Which of course, is not the last word on the issue.
Sorry, Grey, it IS simple, and because of that I wonder why people such as yourself continually insist on doing it incorrectly.
#1) Your statement should read in part “It’s English,” where “it’s” is the contraction of “it is” using an apostrophe; “its” is the possessive form of “it,” a la “his, hers, its.”
#2) In answer to your assertion, I present you with “courts martial,” “mothers-in-law,” “ladies in waiting,” “runs batted in,” “sergeants major,” “lions rampant,” and yes, “attorneys general” as valid modern English examples of the |plural noun + adjective| form left over from the large amount of French subsumed by our wonderfully mongrel tongue over the centuries. In terms of the rationale, they are not “officers of the rank of general,” who happen to practice law; they are “attorneys” who generally (i.e., “broadly”) investigate & prosecute the law as needed per their office’s jurisdiction.
Since both the form and the rationale seem quite easy to follow, “Attorney Generals” seems in turn to be a deliberately ignorant affectation, rather than an uninformed one.
Dave N is correct. See also Inspector General, Surgeon General and Court Martial. If you have been married multiple times do you refer to the maternal parents of your collective spouses as your “Mother in laws” or your “Mothers in law”? (I do not personally have occasion to use this construct).
Some people regard “Attorneys General” as awkward, but it is correct for American english. Even more awkward, the possessive of Attorney General is “Attorney’s General”. Even lawyers avoid this one.
In cases like this we need to bring back matching case endings for nouns and adjectives, like the Latin genitive case. That way the plural would be “Attorneys Generals” the singular possessive would be “Attorney’s General’s” and the plural possessive would be “Attorneys’ Generals’ “. Perfectly logical and easy to remember.
f u cn rd ths, y shd i lrn 2 spl?
The English language has “devolved” over time. When improper or just plain sloppy usage becomes common usage for a long enough time, it becomes the new proper usage. Often at the cost of precision.
For example:
Singular and plural personal pronouns, subject and object.
First person. Singular, “I” and “me”. Plural, “we” and “us”.
Second person. Singular, “you” and “you”. Plural, “you” and “you”.
There was a time when second person was more precise.
Second person. Singular, “thee” and “thou”. Plural, “ye” and “you”.
(Do ya’ll see what I mean? 😎
OOPS!
I got my second person singulars backward.
(It should be obvious whether it was the old or new usage.)
The Democrat state AGs and the eco-maniacal NGOs will have a whole lot of networking
to do at the National Convention in Philadelphia in a couple of weeks.
Those Convention side meetings won’t have minutes or be reported on by the main
stream media.
Hot time in the City !!
How many of the 20 senators who earlier this week took part in bashing those who were affected by the AGs subpoenas are up for re-election this November?
United states Senate Periodical Press Gallery
Senators Up for Re-Election in 2016
Has lists of Democrats and Republican Senators up for re-election in 2016.
Some are retiring.
http://www.periodicalpress.senate.gov/reelection-2016
The Washington Free Beacon, July 11, 2016
‘Dems assign Conservative Groups to Attack on Senate Floor’
Scroll down to the tentative schedule for Monday and Tuesday.
http://www.freebeacon.com/politics/dems-assigned-groups-to-attack-on-senate-floor
Regarding the comment above about popcorn. The original controversy was about movie popcorn flavored with coconut oil. Now every store promotes coconut oil as health food.
The controversy was about palm oil used in microwavable popcorn bags, not coconut oil.
No! They are not the same.
Well, somehow, I thought there was an onus on the extrabuttery flavor. Must I look it up, or, as I prefer, do a taste test?
===============
kim:
I believe the ‘extra buttery’ flavor is an additive to the palm oil. Look for ‘dairy’ or ‘milk’ solids in the ingredients. Real buttered popcorn is much better.
Palm oil, from the kernels of palm nuts, is a highly saturated fat is slow to oxidize and develop an old musty flavor.
Making it ideal for bags of microwave popcorn and surprisingly it is also used to help make coating chocolate. Those sumptuous looking hand dipped chocolates sold in boutique candy stores.
Palm oil is not as fussy about being ‘tempered’ to properly set with a silky sheen.
Coating chocolate without palm oil must be ‘tempered’ by careful heating and cooling or the chocolate coating will not set properly and will definitely not have a silky sheen.
Quite a few tasty snack foods include palm oil now. Melts at a slightly higher temperature than butter, melts at human body temperatures, relatively stable to high heat, slow to go rancid, great carrier for many flavors.
What can go wrong?
Well, early very crude experiments indicate that palm oil isn’t as healthy as other fats; most of which are liquid unsaturated oils.
There is earlier research, but just as crude and not terribly scientific. Information is based on memory, which I think came from the weekly Science News publication.
I do confess a preference for a certain brand of ‘movie’ ‘extra buttery’ popcorn easy microwave popcorn bags.
A little preparation for movie time with my Lady, I will use a plain pot to make popcorn with real butter.
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/19/popcorn/?_r=0
http://articles.latimes.com/1994-04-27/news/ls-50898_1_killer-popcorn
tmitsss:
Neither source is a research report.
Both sources contain amazing amounts of hearsay posed as facts.
Say ‘palm oil’ or ‘coconut fat’ to ordinary people and they automatically assume both are sourced from coconuts. Many of them have the same problem believing that palm trees are coconut trees.
What is missing are the facts. Where is the definitive research? Loose attributions to some obscure title don’t make for firm research.
A) research that proves palm oil is bad?
B) research that proves coconut fat is bad?
Most alleged research just makes assumptions:
1) palm oil = coconut fat
2) coconut fat is saturated = bad for hearts
In spite of all the recent research that debunks most of the alleged ‘heart disease’ studies because those studies are based on bad science; i.e. no controls, selected samples, adjusted or corrected numbers to meet expectations.
Several European countries have already stopped the cholesterol gravy train where doctors focus entirely on cholesterols and prescribe medicines to almost everyone to ‘control’ their cholesterols.
In America, in spite of the knowledge that cholesterols are not the bogeyman, the cholesterol gravy train is very entrenched with careers and massive amounts of cholesterol dependent money.
Irrespective that the human body makes cholesterols for use in the body, irrespective of diet.
Heh, UCS is becoming very useful, the idiots.
===========
“He wants to silence our efforts to hold ExxonMobil accountable for deceiving the public and shareholders about the reality and risks of climate change.”
Deceiving the public? What is Exxon doing, putting in a little extra additive in the tank to make people breathe the air of skepticism?
I want to know how Exxon is ‘deceiving the public’. The public doesn’t look to Exxon for advice on climate change and I can’t recall Exxon telling it’s shareholders that their investments will be worth more and more as the price of oil is artificially driven up by the silly demands of fear-mongers. Oh wait, I think they did. But the Attorneys General claimed the opposite, that the oil is going to be worthless and Exxon told them Exxon is a good investment over the past 40 years, which seems to have been true.
It seems Exxon was correct and the AG’s don’t know what they are talking about. Trying to make Exxon sound like a tobacco company is one of the dumbest ideas I have ever hear proposed by the extreme Greens. Tobacco is positively poisonous and oil is positively beneficial. It is amazing to see the scallywags losing their own plot. If you can’t differentiate between oil and tobacco, how on earth can they differentiate between the influence of ozone, CO2 and water vapour?
They have convinced themselves this is so, with Naomi Oreskes in the lead. And that Exxon is funding all those pesky think tanks like CEI and blogs like WUWT that raise doubts about the 97% consensus. What is really hard to understand is how they think these doubts are somehow false. Lets see, models failed, temperture did not rise this century, no SLR acceleration, lots of Arctic ice, polar nears thriving… Objective true facts raise the doubts. And the first amendment guarantees the right to speak them.
To skew and/or over-reach results from Science to further line one’s pockets (aka, further the stated watermelon political agenda) is misleading propaganda, harking back to snake oil days. If efforts have been made to collude with other entities to do such a thing is evident, the gavel should fall and sentencing commence.
I thinnk Anthony ought to qualify for the post of:
“Climate Accountability Campaign Manager
Climate and Energy Program
Union of Unconcerned Scientists”
Can Kenji nominate Anthony for it?
You know, maybe slipping a note to the committee?
Is Eric Schneiderman the reincarnation of ‘Bull’ Conner? They’re both government officials whose duty is the enforcement of laws. They both want to advance their careers by using the power of government to suppress civil rights. And they’re both Democrats.
The evidence that ExxonMobil knew about Global Warming seems to be from papers that they published. How can publishing a paper be evidence that they were hiding the contents of that paper?
“The evidence that ExxonMobil knew about Global Warming seems to be from papers that they published.”
Exxon didn’t have evidence of anything, just like noone from then to today has any evidence of AGW/CAGW.
What Exxon did was speculate on Global Warming. It’s not a crime to speculate on scientific theories. It’s not a punishable crime to be right or wrong when you are speculating.
Exxon had no concrete AGW/CAGW confirmation facts that it was hiding from the public and shareholders. There are no such facts to hide.
The AG’s are charging Exxon with hiding something that doesn’t exist. I don’t see how they are going to prove that case. The Alarmists have done their best over the years and haven’t proven it yet.
Abolish the departments of: Energy, Education, Labor, Agriculture, HHS, HUD, Export-Import Bank and Transportation. Eliminate the foolish, socialist meddling with local and state responsibilities.
A bit too late maybe, I realize that everybody has left this party. I guess I might soon get the possibility to post this comment to another post, However, I just came across the following section, by Karl Popper, which seems relevant when discussing the intolerance by:
– The Rico 20
– The 20 Attorneys for clean energy
– The 20 US Senators for disapproval of climate science denial
«Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.
In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.
We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.»
– Karl Popper; The Open Society and it´s enemies
I´m glad to see that we got Karl Popper on our side.