Blowback has started on Schneiderman and the #ExxonKnew AG's

From the Bend Bulletin:

Editorial: What’s safe to say about climate change?

We would appreciate it if Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum would tell us what we are supposed to say about climate change.

Her office has signed on to an agreement with 16 other attorneys general to potentially conduct investigations, including examining “representations made by companies to investors, consumers and the public regarding fossil fuels, renewable energy and climate change.”

Perhaps Rosenblum’s office could provide all companies in Oregon with a list of talking points and opinions on climate change that won’t make them subject to state investigation.

Is it OK to say there is debate about climate science? Is it OK to say there is uncertainty about how much of a role humans play in climate change? Is it OK to say you don’t believe Bend’s climate change ordinance is going to change the climate?

The agreement among the attorneys general was born in part out of the efforts of Eric Schneiderman, New York’s attorney general and another signatory on the agreement. He got Peabody Energy, a large coal producer, to agree to disclose more information to investors about its financial risks. And Schneiderman is investigating whether Exxon Mobil lied in the past to investors and the public about climate change. Attorneys general have subpoena power that gives them the ability to vacuum up a company’s internal documents.

Rosenblum’s office signed on to the joint agreement on April 29. Her office declined this week to say if it was investigating anyone.

Rosenblum did say in a statement in March that climate change in Oregon is real. “My office is committed to working with other state Attorneys General to address the issue, and we will continue to push for and defend stronger federal efforts,” she said. “If we don’t act now, it may soon be too late.”

But that statement evades the important issues at stake in these investigations. What is righthink about climate change? Can the opinions of a company be held as criminal despite the First Amendment? To what extent must companies disclose risks to their businesses from climate change? Is this really about squashing dissent to climate change orthodoxy?

It’s a crazy idea that Rosenblum may be deciding what can be debated about debatable issues.


0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
August 24, 2016 8:17 am

“Editorial: What’s safe to say about climate change?”
Anything that the author has researched/published in credible high-impact climate-related, peer-reviewed journals.

Reply to  JohnMacdonell
August 24, 2016 9:05 am

What about Al Gore?

Bryan A
Reply to  Sam Grove
August 24, 2016 10:28 am

He invented the Al-Gor-ithms that the models all use

Bill Powers
Reply to  Sam Grove
August 24, 2016 10:42 am

Bryan! Nice!!!

John Harmsworth
Reply to  Sam Grove
August 24, 2016 11:45 am

No! He invented the internet and then just looked it up!

Reply to  Sam Grove
August 27, 2016 2:34 pm

I am old enuf to remember Al Gore coining the term “information superhighway.” I hate that term because it WAS Al Gore who invented it. That is all he ever claimed.

Reply to  JohnMacdonell
August 24, 2016 9:07 am

This excludes most journalist output and campaigning websites, correct? What a relief!

Reply to  betapug
August 24, 2016 7:32 pm

Just in case anyone had any doubts about how serious this might get, I recently saw a Clinton campaign mail-out document discussed and shown on a site, which included talk of “mainstream Republican” sorts of websites having the Constitutional right to exist, but others, like ‘Breitbart’ given as example, as not having “the right to exist”.

Reply to  JohnKnight
August 24, 2016 7:46 pm

Credit due to Hil. For such a compulsive liar, she’s pretty straight up about her desire to strip away constitutional recognition of our liberties. That this pleases so many voters is disturbing. It is oppressive living under rulers selected by these woeful people.
Republicans have been revealed to be fake opponents with few exceptions. That’s why she would let them have a license to exercise the fundamental right to express disagreement with the state. They just want some time at the helm for future lobbying credentials. No rollback whatsoever. Probably those two republicans posing as libertarians could get one too.

Bill Powers
Reply to  jamesbbkk
August 25, 2016 2:46 pm

“That this pleases so many voters is disturbing.”
James, that is at the heart of the untold story in 2016, the writing on the bathroom wall, if you will. We have Late Gen X and Millienials in a forced march to socialism on the strength of the tune of the pied piper, as played by Bernie Sanders in this latest stage production. Musical score provided by Post Graduate TA’s With lyrics donated by pot head baby boomers that have been hiding out on university campuses across the nation since 1965.
They have programmed the 50% plus 1 now all they have to do is authorize online voting.

Science or Fiction
Reply to  JohnMacdonell
August 24, 2016 9:32 am

I think you are naive about articles published in peer-reviewed journals. Have a look at this paper:
Flawed citation practices facilitate the unsubstantiated perception of a global trend toward increased jellyfish blooms
“Here we present a citation analysis of peer-reviewed literature to track the evolution of the current perception of increases in jellyfish and identify key papers involved in its establishment… Analyses showed that 48.9% of publications misinterpreted the conclusions of cited sources, with a bias towards claiming jellyfish populations are increasing, … . Collectively, these disparities resulted in a network based on unsubstantiated statements and citation threads.”
“Indeed, the misconceptions resulting from mis-citation are even more dangerous when they are contained in papers published in highly influential journals, which provide a platform for those papers to be highly cited. Duarte et al. (2015) have argued that poor citation practices are one of the elements that have perpetuated perceptions on ocean calamities (including rising jellyfish populations) that are contributing to an overly negative perception on the state of the ocean.”
Read the paper to see that United Nations played a role in it.

Jim Yushchyshyn
Reply to  Science or Fiction
August 24, 2016 5:32 pm

I believe that Churchill would say that Peer Review is the worst possible system, except for anything else.
If you don’t believe that, come up with a better system, and plan a trip to Stockholm to collect a Nobel Prize.

Science or Fiction
Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 24, 2016 10:18 pm

The problem isn´t necessarily the peer review system.
The problems are the belief that the peer review system is effective quality control, lack of respect for the risk of group think, lack of understanding about the power of a ruling paradigm, lack of understanding of the problem of induction, that scrutiny is missing from the principles governing IPCC, the introduction of subjective levels of confidence by IPCC, the belief in consensus, the utilization of “science” for United Nations politics. (Check my site for complete arguments and links The fundamental flaws with IPCC – from a scientific point of view!).
In short, the problem is that United Nations has messed up scientific principles. Within science, United Nations has become an international problem of a cultural character, United Nations has become one of the kinds of problems it, by the charter, was put up to create international cooperation in solving.

Reply to  Science or Fiction
August 24, 2016 10:57 pm

Well saide!

ferd berple
Reply to  Science or Fiction
August 25, 2016 10:02 am

United Nations has become one of the kinds of problems it, by the charter, was put up to create international cooperation in solving.
when someone’s livelihood depends on working to solve a problem, they have a financial incentive to make sure the problem is never solved. otherwise they are working to put themselves out of a job.

Reply to  Science or Fiction
August 27, 2016 2:38 pm

Jim, I think the Mass-Peer-Review system here at WUWT is a method that is superior to the paper journal method. This method did not exist until the internet.

Reply to  JohnMacdonell
August 24, 2016 9:48 am

“credible high-impact climate-related, peer-reviewed journals” – I have yet to find such a journal. High-impact? Yeah, found those. Climate-related? Yep, found those too. Peer-reviewed? That is not saying much given who the peers are, but yeah, those too. Credible? Ah there’s the rub. That set is disjoint with the others.

Bryan A
Reply to  ShrNfr
August 24, 2016 10:29 am

One of the longest Oxy-Moronic sentences ever written

Jim Yushchyshyn
Reply to  ShrNfr
August 24, 2016 5:33 pm

Bring on the personal attacks.

Bryan A
Reply to  ShrNfr
August 24, 2016 10:29 pm

Not a personal attack, just an honest observation. I didn’t state anything negative about the author of the statement, I merely pointed out it’s Oxymoronic nature

Brett Keane
Reply to  ShrNfr
August 25, 2016 1:31 am

@ Jim Yushchyshyn
August 24, 2016 at 5:32 pm: at the risk of feeding yet another troll, I note that JY’s leaders have prostituted peer-review as in their climategate ‘redefinitition’. of it. This stinks like a cartload of rotten fish! So go home.

Reply to  JohnMacdonell
August 24, 2016 9:52 am

You’re joking, right?
The taxpayers who fund corrupt climate “science” have no First Amendment right to question the results of trough-feeding bureaucrats and their pal reviewers?
Were you born and raised in the Soviet Union? Where else could you have gotten such Lysenkoist notions?

Jim Yushchyshyn
Reply to  Gabro
August 24, 2016 5:34 pm

Bring on the personal attacks.

Reply to  Gabro
August 27, 2016 6:09 am

JUSTIA Dockets & Filings
Resolute Forest Products, Inc. et al V. Greenpeace International et al
Nature of Suit: RICO
Exxon is not the only action taking place.

Reply to  Barbara
August 27, 2016 7:51 am

RICO lawsuits against research universities that crank out crooked global warming studies would be appropriate and would get the attention of upper management.

Reply to  JohnMacdonell
August 24, 2016 10:26 am

Please educate yourself on the bogus, corrupt enterprise of so-called “peer review”:
Science advanced spectacularly without it before the 20th century and has largely been impeded and disgraced by it since then.

Ben of Houston
Reply to  Gabro
August 24, 2016 12:17 pm

Come now Gabro, there’s a big difference between review by your peers and the institution known as “peer review”.
The former has always been done. We have letters written from Gallileo to colleagues asking their opinion on his papers. The issue is with “peer review” as a gatekeeper. This is especially true in climate, as disparate review processes push heavy pressure on anyone who disagrees, but we routinely see stuff on this site that would not pass muster at an elementary school science fair.

Reply to  Gabro
August 24, 2016 3:55 pm

Yes, and Kepler of Galileo. And his student encouraged Copernicus to publish. Darwin and Wallace’s joint paper was read to the Linnean Society.
But that isn’t the same process as peer review by a journal in the past century or so.

Robert Austin
Reply to  JohnMacdonell
August 24, 2016 11:09 am

You forgot the /Sarcon, /Sarcoff labels.

Reply to  Robert Austin
August 24, 2016 1:21 pm

wasn’t he the guy with big shorts on “Buck Rogers”?

Bryan A
Reply to  Robert Austin
August 24, 2016 10:32 pm

Yeah Dr.

Bryan A
Reply to  Robert Austin
August 24, 2016 10:33 pm

Tried it with the brackets (Dr./Sarcoff)

Reply to  JohnMacdonell
August 24, 2016 11:31 am

That definition would never pass muster under US law since it grants censorship powers. I think it’s called “prior restraint”.
You’ve never published in a refereed journal have you? They aren’t magic and the role of what you think of as “peer-review” or even a “journal” in an age based on information exchange via the internet is rapidly coming to a close. Visit the site ResearchGate or the pre-publication site for examples.
Or were you just trying to incite blowback yourself?

Reply to  Bartleby
August 24, 2016 11:32 am

If it’s sarcasm, it’s difficult because I think something like that might very easily be proposed in this example…

John Thompson
Reply to  JohnMacdonell
August 24, 2016 12:40 pm

So this limits the safe-zone to an “author” (Whatever that means.) who has “researched/published” (Both? Either? “Researched” on the Internet? By watching lots of T.V.? By taking a poll?) in “credible” (Who decides that, and according to what standards?) “high-impact” (Who decides that, and according to what standards?) “climate-related” (Who decides that, and according to what standards?) “peer-reviewed journals” (Any particular “peers” in mind — maybe those who are all-in for AGW already, for example — and will there be any other level of review in light of peer-reviewed schlock — even fraudulent material — that has passed “peer review”?).
The Politburo would be proud.

Reply to  JohnMacdonell
August 24, 2016 1:54 pm

“credible high-impact climate-related, peer-reviewed journals”
Name one that is still credible !!
You don’t know what peer-review is for, do you.
Its for publishing in journals.
It has very little to do with science.

Reply to  JohnMacdonell
August 24, 2016 2:21 pm

1st comment in this thread … and the ‘argument’ looked so sooo awkward. I had to check if this merely was another drive-by-blather, what one would expect from those who engage in such …
I found this, and looked through this one. Not allt that impressive. Rather what one would expect from a drive-by-blatherer who cannot make a coherent argument about whatever (s)he wants to say ..

James Allison
Reply to  JohnMacdonell
August 24, 2016 2:44 pm

By your logic the authors of the following failed climate predictions were ‘safe’ to make them because they were based on “researched/published in credible high-impact climate-related, peer-reviewed journals.”

James Allison
Reply to  James Allison
August 24, 2016 2:46 pm

Meant for 1st comment in this thread – JohnMacdonell

Reply to  JohnMacdonell
August 24, 2016 8:29 pm

Is safety incompatible with accuracy?

tobias smit
Reply to  JohnMacdonell
August 24, 2016 9:56 pm
Reply to  tobias smit
August 25, 2016 1:46 pm

IWTs have zero reliability.
Oregon residents can just do without power unless they can afford to generate their own power.
Low income residents will be hit the hardest.

Reply to  JohnMacdonell
August 24, 2016 10:39 pm

August 24, 2016 at 8:17 am

“Editorial: What’s safe to say about climate change?”
Anything that the author has researched/published in credible high-impact climate-related, peer-reviewed journals.

John, it sounds like you are only “Begging the Question” of whether *CO2* increases cause Climate Change – which you should instead be trying to prove or disprove – and are therefore only making the usual unscientific appeal to Consensus, so that you can just repeat-away according to The Consensus, and The Consensus on The Consensus, etc.
But according to your own rule, you have to have “researched/published,etc” in order to say anything about CO2-Climate Change, including what you just said. In other words, you seem to state a version of “Only a ‘real’ Climate Scientist can say anything about CO2-Climate Change.” Are you a “Real Climate Scientist” who fits your prescription as to what can be said about CO2-Climate Change?
I’ll take what you’ve said above as a “no” even though it sounds a lot like their “method”. But regardless, why would you want to repeat only what other people have said? Perhaps because you know nothing about real Science and know you are not competent to even read a Study which says what someone has said about a scientific issue?
I’d bet the Oregon AG would be in full agreement with you, for the same reasons but also for the benefit of The Rigged.
On the other hand, I don’t have to follow your or the Oregon AG’s rules and practices as to what can be said, at least not until after you’ve disarmed me, taken Anthony Watts and my Daughters hostage, or the Nation’s First Lucyfer is in full control.
So I’ll say, “CO2 increases have been only alleged to cause Climate Change starting at 1950. But those hypotheses have already been Scientifically Falsified by the “Real Climate Scientists'” [100%] record of Prediction Failure.”
Come and get it.

Reply to  JPeden
August 25, 2016 10:36 am

If today’s climate models made predictions they would be susceptible to falsification. However, they make “projections.” Unlike predictions projections lack truth-values; thus they cannot be falsified.

Reply to  Terry Oldberg
August 25, 2016 12:01 pm

Terry, you have hit upon the answer!
The IPCC can now “project” the demise of fossil fueled combustion. That way they can declare victory and we all go home to a real life.

Reply to  dogdaddyblog
August 25, 2016 4:03 pm

I wish it were that simple. The root cause for nonsensical public policy on global warming seems to me to be failure to provide adequate training in logic to our students. A consequence from lack of adequate training is for models to be built that supply no information to a regulator about the outcomes from his/her policy decisions and for regulators to attempt regulation of the climate on the basis of no information because no regulators know that a regulator needs information..

Reply to  JohnMacdonell
August 25, 2016 1:14 am

“Editorial: What’s safe to say about climate change?”
Conformity to the political established UNFCCC?

Mike Smith
August 24, 2016 8:18 am

I have prepared a clear and safe statement anyone can use:
Climate is complicated.

Reply to  Mike Smith
August 24, 2016 8:46 am

Heretic! This is an obvious dog whistle statement. If climate is complicated then it means there is room for debate.
The reeducation camps are to your left. Don’t forget to pick up your uniform.

Sweet Old Bob
Reply to  Frank Lee MeiDere
August 24, 2016 9:07 am

They get clothes? One size fits all ? 😉

Reply to  Frank Lee MeiDere
August 24, 2016 10:01 am

Of course. They’re supplied by the Procrustes Clothing Manufacture: “Our clothes are the right size; it’s you that needs modification.”

Bryan A
Reply to  Frank Lee MeiDere
August 24, 2016 10:31 am

No, Sweet Old Bob, not clothes…Just old dirty pillowcases with Arm holes and a Head hole.
Clothes sets you free

Phil R
Reply to  Frank Lee MeiDere
August 24, 2016 11:06 am

Bryan A,

Clothes sets you free

No, a sock freely given sets you free! (but I guess that counts as clothes.) 🙁

Jim Yushchyshyn
Reply to  Frank Lee MeiDere
August 24, 2016 5:35 pm

Room for informed debate.

Reply to  Frank Lee MeiDere
August 25, 2016 11:08 am

Just old dirty pillowcases with Arm holes and a Head hole.
AGW is a hair shirt. We must scourge ourselves to prove our worthiness to do God’s work on Earth.

Reply to  Mike Smith
August 24, 2016 9:09 am

Complicated? You are not allowed to say that!, 97% agree it is simple and settled

michael hart
Reply to  betapug
August 24, 2016 3:14 pm

‘Too complicated for the likes of us’, is the usual implied message.

Reply to  Mike Smith
August 24, 2016 9:33 am

i’ve got an acronym – FOF.

george e. smith
Reply to  Mike Smith
August 24, 2016 10:10 am

What climate ??
Even simpler; and the ball is back in their court.

Reply to  Mike Smith
August 24, 2016 10:37 am

Oh No, It has to be “The science is settled, we need grant money for further studies”

Reply to  Mike Smith
August 24, 2016 1:22 pm

I’ll take Liberty!

Reply to  Scott Frasier
August 24, 2016 3:06 pm

97% of all “liberals” prefer Free Stuff to Liberty.

FJ Shepherd
August 24, 2016 8:20 am

How many “heretics” while on the rack in the 13th century explained the Holy Trinity adequately?

August 24, 2016 8:23 am

Where are the principled scientists? Do they support free Inquisition only why the Inquisition supports their side? Every scientist should be outraged, yet there is deafening silence. Pathetic, and more reason we need to totally restaff our research universities. They have us headed in the wrong direction.

Reply to  CO2isLife
August 24, 2016 10:23 am

Well, for a start in 1998 over 31,000 American scientists signed the Global Warming Petition.
The problem isn’t that there are no Scientists prepared to speak. the problem is that the MSM ignores them so the general public don’t know about them.

Reply to  Oldseadog
August 24, 2016 12:30 pm

and they all have pet unicorns

Reply to  Steven Mosher
August 24, 2016 3:48 pm

Do those come from the same stables as the “man causes all of the warming, except when he wasn’t there for it” ponies? Ah, ha! When the weeds form a maze, Mr. Mosher’s irrepressible wanderings apparently lead in circles.

Reply to  Oldseadog
August 24, 2016 1:14 pm

The denial is strong in this one.

Reply to  Oldseadog
August 24, 2016 1:56 pm

“Where are the principled scientists?”
Well Mosh sure missed out on getting on that list. !!

Harry Passfield
Reply to  Oldseadog
August 24, 2016 1:57 pm

You are a sad, sad man, Steven Mosher. Humankind has as much chance of effecting – or even changing – the climate to one that you and yours deem to be ideal (such hubris!) as it has of effecting the outcome of the earthquake in Italy. But perhaps you think that was caused by AGW.

Reply to  Oldseadog
August 24, 2016 6:27 pm

Go get a science education. Your English degree just doesn’t cut it. Why anyone listens to your garbage is beyond belief.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Oldseadog
August 26, 2016 12:26 pm

Mosher: ‘and they all have pet unicorns.’
I made a computer generated pet unicorn on my graphics program the other day.
Amazing what you can do with CGI.

August 24, 2016 8:25 am

These AGs should be impeached or if possible dismissed or recalled, disbarred, and prohibted from holding any office or government job again, for conspiring to deprive us of our fundamental constitutionally-recognized liberties using their state offices and state powers.

Reply to  jamesbbkk
August 24, 2016 9:25 am

One of the brilliant things about the constitution is that it anticipated that the government might actually be the problem.

… Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, …

One of the tricky bits about democracy is the tyranny of the majority. All these AGs were duly elected. My guess is that it would be hard to recall most of them. Recall isn’t even possible in all states. The best we can hope for is criminal prosecution.

Reply to  commieBob
August 24, 2016 10:34 am

You’re quoting the Declaration of Independence, not the US Constitution.

Bill Powers
Reply to  commieBob
August 24, 2016 10:39 am

Yours is the salient point. They control the Public School systems. Now BOb wants to institute Government Pre-school. They want to mold these malleable minds by filling them with nightmare images of dying polar bears and penguins. They know that if they dumb them down they can dupe 50%plus1 to vote contrary to their own personal liberty. “Save the polar bears and me from myself! Yes please, 3 bags full.”

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  commieBob
August 24, 2016 3:37 pm

The Declaration of Independence is considered one of the founding documents, and it’s principals co-equal to the elements of the Constitution.

Reply to  commieBob
August 24, 2016 6:01 pm

D. J., he’s still quoting the Declaration of Independence.

Donna K. Becker
August 24, 2016 8:26 am

Could it possibly be that someone at The Bulletin actually read the climate-related links I sent?!?

Reply to  Donna K. Becker
August 24, 2016 12:36 pm

‘The role of transnational companies in the formation of a European Biofules Policy’
Draft: P.2
‘The Unilever and Greenpeace Alliance’
One account of how this alliance came about.
‘Vermont Pushes for a Carbon Pollution Tax, March 17, 2015
Ben & Jerry’s is a subsidiary of Unilever since c. 2000
‘Meet Annie!’, March 15, 2016
Annie Leonard, Executive Director of Greenpeace USA.
On the Board of Ben & Jerry’s.

Reply to  Barbara
August 24, 2016 12:42 pm
Reply to  Barbara
August 24, 2016 12:45 pm
August 24, 2016 8:27 am

..Maybe they should first “investigate” whether “Catastrophic Man Made Climate Change” is real !

Harry Passfield
Reply to  Marcus
August 24, 2016 2:04 pm

No Marcus. I suggest that President Trump (Clinton will not want to cut off a wealth-enhancing opportunity) should set up a commission to investigate what ‘science’ considers to be the ideal climate for the planet. At least that way the alarmists will be kept busy arguing that toss rather than telling us what is not a good climate. (and they would know this, how?)

Reply to  Harry Passfield
August 24, 2016 2:52 pm

…Brilliant !! I kneel in awe…..

Caligula Jones
August 24, 2016 8:39 am

I get the idea that if an oil company said to its investors: “new government regulations to fight climate change is going to cost us tens of billions of dollars and will achieve squat” it would be charged too.
As I said yesterday, this is just a grown up version of “heads I win, tails you lose” from grade school.

Reply to  Caligula Jones
August 24, 2016 9:01 am

“I get the idea that if an oil company said to its investors: “new government regulations to fight climate change is going to cost us tens of billions of dollars …”
Sadly, no, it’s not going to cost the oil company anything.
It’s going to cost the CONSUMER everything. We will pay.

Reply to  wallensworth
August 24, 2016 9:53 am

Especially when they force ‘big oil’ to leave it in the ground. Then we’ll pay in spades. The poor and elderly leading the way, right straight into the ground.

Alan McIntire
Reply to  wallensworth
August 24, 2016 10:38 am

Actually it would cost both the oil company increased sales and profits, and the consumer in more expensive energy, food, transportation.
I’m reminded of a RaymondSmullyan story.. A man walks into a bar and said, “I’ll have a drink, and drinks for ghe house. When I drink EVER’yBODY drinks!” He then said, “I’ll have another, and when I have another, EVERYBODY has another!” He finally pulls out his walled and says, “And when I pay, EVERYBODY pays!”
In real lif EVERYBODY pays, the energy company in reduced profits, everyone else in increased prices..

Caligula Jones
Reply to  wallensworth
August 24, 2016 11:05 am

True. But if I’m a stock owner…stock is liable to go down, no?

Reply to  wallensworth
August 25, 2016 10:54 am

Alberta Government, July 13, 2016
The Oil Sands Advisory Group
Advisory group members.
The activists are inside now and not outside.
Something similar to the Unilever and Greenpeace alliance developing?

Reply to  wallensworth
August 27, 2016 3:05 am

Berman on the Alberta Oil Sands Advisory group and Klein of are both connected to McKibben.
Alberta oil sands have been portrayed by some as “bad” and now the oil sands are going to be “OK”?
Unilever was portrayed by some as a “bad company” and then it suddenly became an “OK” company.

August 24, 2016 9:02 am

Dear Ms. Rosenblum,
How is the climate supposedly changing that has you so concerned?

August 24, 2016 9:06 am

“Rosenblum did say in a statement in March that climate change in Oregon is real. “My office is committed to working with other state Attorneys General to address the issue, and we will continue to push for and defend stronger federal efforts,” she said. “If we don’t act now, it may soon be too late.””
A witch hunt is what this is,to defend the government highly politicized position, in the drive to impose control over people.

August 24, 2016 9:08 am

CO2isLife nails it!
This is how the Brownshirts gain power and influence over everyday life.
Push back, and demand your legislators/representatives do the same.

John Endicott
August 24, 2016 9:22 am

“Rosenblum did say in a statement in March that climate change in Oregon is real.“
Well, yes it is, and has been for as long as there has been climate. But that’s a completely different thing to the unproven theory of catastrophic man-made climate change. A bit of a bait and switch there to point to one that that is real (climate change) and then go on and on about something else.

Reply to  John Endicott
August 24, 2016 10:25 am

+ 1

August 24, 2016 9:24 am

This is what happens when you let sociopaths get to positions of power and influence.

Reply to  Graham
August 24, 2016 11:10 am

Without politics, what work could sociopaths find?

John Harmsworth
Reply to  MarkW
August 24, 2016 12:00 pm

the closely related field of Law?

Mark from the Midwest
August 24, 2016 9:29 am

All you need to know about Rosenblum is that her husband was publisher of a very liberal weekly out of Portland. If you can get a few back issues of Willamette Week, described as an “alternative newspaper,” you will see that these people are B.S.C.

Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
August 24, 2016 6:12 pm

I didn’t know she was related to Willamette Week. It does do some investigative stuff.
I believe that Willamette Week was responsible for outing Gov. Kitzhabers girlfriend (& the Gov) for using the Governers office for personal gain. The girlfriend was a consultant on climate issues for government & for private consulting firm … overlapping. She had 3 or 4 years experience as a “climate consulant” prior to making lots of cash in deals involving State monies. Prior to being a climate whore she was involved in a failed property deal where her boyfriend tried to lease a farm to grow/sell marijuana (before it was legal) … she claimed it was all the idea of the boyfriend. The Gov resigned & neither the Gov or his climate whore were prosecuted by this Atty General Rosenblum (who, by coincidence, was appointed by said outgoing Governor).
Appears that the Government of Oregon has turned into a cesspool of democrats … it has been dems for a long time, but the cesspool descriptor now applies.

August 24, 2016 9:29 am

Further proof of loss of free speech:
August 19 Wall Street Journal opinion piece “Enlist the Market in the Climate-Change Fight”
By Jeff zients and Brian Deese, two Obama Administration functionaries.
They propose rules framework for how companies report the climate risk of their operation to shareholders.
In other words, government control of what and how you run your company.
Exerpt: “the SEC could adopt detailed and standardized industry specific requirements for disclosure, and…aggressively hold public companies to account…this effort should also be extended internationally.”

August 24, 2016 9:34 am

How about sending an open letter to all 16 AG’s asking them the question directly? You could include a list of potential transgressions along the lines of the questions you pose here. You could include check boxes alongside each one so as to save their time. Just a quick skim through, checking and crossing as they go- oh, and include a stamped addressed envelope with it so there’s no excuse not to send it back.

August 24, 2016 9:41 am

That is my local paper in our little town of 80,000. Like many towns with civic minded people, our city council wants to hop on the bandwagon and “do our part” by implementing a policy to cut emissions, in spite of the fact that they have limited grasp of costs and energy sources, let alone climate science. I sent them a letter in as factual terms as possible pointing out although climate change may be real and some portion of it probably anthropogenic, the existence of a “climate crisis” is based upon highly suspect models, not measured facts.
An attorney general like that does not help our council form a reasonable policy.

Donna K. Becker
Reply to  Doug
August 24, 2016 10:13 am

Doug, we should get in touch sometime.

August 24, 2016 9:45 am

If companies can be investigated over this issue, then so can individuals. There is no Constitution-C Class and Constitution I-Class. This is using public office and public funds to harass based on advocacy opinion and advocacy quid pro quo.

August 24, 2016 9:47 am

Is it safe to say that the climate changes?

August 24, 2016 9:58 am

I think there is a krufty old document in Washington DC that among other things specifically prescribes the government shall take no action to prevent free speech. And while it does not guarantee there are no consequences for that freedom, citizens of this great nation are free to speak out on any subject that pleases us. The SCOTUS has also made the point that fear of retribution is a form of constraint on free speech and cannot be used as a proxy for an 800 pound gorilla in the room. These attorneys general should be facing disbarment for abuse of office and privilege.

Peter R Evans
August 24, 2016 10:03 am

Oddly enough, according to the Office of the Washington State Climatologist the State of Oregon has been cooling over the last two decades but warming over the past three.
Data from 1994 through 2014 (most recent posted) indicate cooling trends throughout most of the state.

Bill Powers
August 24, 2016 10:13 am

“Rosenblum did say in a statement in March that climate change in Oregon is real.”
Of course Climate Change is real! We have scientific evidence to verify that it is real, not only is it real, it predates Homo Sapiens and it is ongoing. I bet it is not okay to write about that?
Rosenblum also said: “If we don’t act now, it MAY soon be too late.” Always look for it, the qualifier. That qualifier allows for, however it MAY NOT be too late.
“If ifs and buts where candy and nuts…” May still would’t qualify as real science beyond anything other than a hypothetical.

Reply to  Bill Powers
August 24, 2016 10:28 am

Soon you will beg to admit that there was no climate change before humans started burning fossil fuels!

Bill Powers
Reply to  Gabro
August 24, 2016 11:45 am

The climate changed, before the discovery of fossil fuels. So I fail to understand the point you are trying to make.

Bryan A
Reply to  Gabro
August 24, 2016 12:23 pm

they will need to rename it yet again to something more like

Ben of Houston
Reply to  Gabro
August 24, 2016 12:34 pm

I think that Garbo was attempting at sarcasm.

Bruce Cobb
August 24, 2016 10:23 am

Actually in Greentopia, asking the question “what’s safe to say about climate change?” is itself an example of greenthoughtcrime, requiring at minimum 6 months in a climate gulag for extensive climate re-education.

August 24, 2016 10:24 am

“He got Peabody Energy, a large coal producer, to agree to disclose more information to investors about its financial risks”
Did he notice that the biggest financial risk was from the consequences of idiots pushing the false narrative of substantial climate change caused by CO2 which if they succeed will cost shareholders almost their entire investment?

Jim Yushchyshyn
Reply to  co2isnotevil
August 24, 2016 5:37 pm

Interesting name.
Arsenic is not evil, either.
Neither is radon.

Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 24, 2016 6:39 pm

Some people consider RADON the opposite of evil:
“With colorful names like the Sunshine Health Mine, Free Enterprise, Earth Angel, Radon Tunnel, and the Merry Widow, the mine shafts tout radon levels as much as 175 times the federal safety standard for houses. Yet, visitors claim miraculous recoveries and disease remissions in the damp, cool passages. Some have arrived in wheelchairs, then walked out on their own. – See more at:
ARSENIC could/should be considered an essential element. Daily intake is similar to Selenium is good for you (and everyone else). Arsenic deficiency depresses growth and impairs reproduction; arsenic also may help in regulating harmful intestinal organisms. Arsenic is needed/good … the opposite of evil.
Ignorance, willful ignorance is evil.

Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 24, 2016 7:34 pm

Of course not. Neither arsenic atoms nor radon atoms are moral agents.

Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 25, 2016 10:53 am

However, the IPCC is evil incarnated as the body of climate science research.

Reply to  co2isnotevil
August 25, 2016 8:00 pm

Peabody Energy Corp. (BTUUQ.PK) OTC
On June 1, 2008, stock closed at ~ $1300 USD/share.
Today, Aug.25, 2016, closed at ~ $1.35 USD/share

Reply to  Barbara
August 26, 2016 11:04 am

NASDAQ: Peabody Energy Corp. major shareholders
List of: 135 Institutional Holders as of 6-30-16
Big hits?

Dodgy Geezer
August 24, 2016 10:33 am

… Is it OK to say there is uncertainty about how much of a role humans play in climate change?..
Yes, you’re allowed to say it is uncertain ’round the edges’. But you must always finish your piece by saying that ‘fundamentally, the Earth is still about to roast in heat and fire and drown in rising oceans unless we stop using all our technology*…’
* (except anyone working on climate change and their friends…)

Reply to  Dodgy Geezer
August 24, 2016 3:25 pm

Dodgy wrote in part:

[…] the Earth is still about to roast in heat and fire and drown in rising oceans […]

I always wondered about that. How do we roast in fire when the oceans will rise and put the fire out?
Someone needs to call a team huddle and get their stories straight.

August 24, 2016 10:37 am

Is it permitted that Spartacus has an opinion that differs from the State?

Harry Passfield
Reply to  Resourceguy
August 24, 2016 2:26 pm

Hmm…interesting point, Resourceguy:
“L’Etat, c’est moi” (Louis XIV – oddly, the Sun King – and whose name, Louis-Dieudonné roughly translates to Louis the God Given – as Al Gore likes to think he is,
“I am Spartacus!” (Tony Curtis [cough] et al – who, with his fellow sceptics, was crucified for his beliefs)

August 24, 2016 10:39 am

What is the county by county impact in Oregon now? That is not even getting to projections and across time damage models.

August 24, 2016 10:41 am

20 U.S. Attorneys General on-stage with Al Gore, issuing a statement that they intend to use their powers to fight “climate change.” Does any clear thinking person need more proof that the Police Powers of our government is being used to punish dissident belief?
When the gatekeepers to our system of justice say they intend to use their vast powers to enforce a politicized view of science, honest people must rise up in full-throated protest. Even if you believe AGW dominates our climate, you dare not accept a system that could come for you in the future.
A bunch of dead old guys overthrew such a corrupt system for your future benefit. Why stand by witnessing the wastage of those benefits?
Dave Fair

Jim Yushchyshyn
Reply to  dogdaddyblog
August 24, 2016 5:40 pm

Thanks for providing an excellent example of alarmism.
Al Gore, who hasn’t held public office for 16 years, is going to use his vast powers. Right!

Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 24, 2016 7:04 pm

Non sequitur, again, Jim Y.
20 Attorneys General. Focusing on a politicised area like climate science. Vowing, in essence, to force unreliable climate models on the unbelievers.
Fines? Jail time? Worse? All for old thought crimes? All for pointing out the obvious weaknesses in the prevailing meme? All for moving too slowly in adopting the expedient corporate capitulation?
In what 3rd World fantasyland does your mind reside? We have (had?) a system of laws in this country. Ex post facto prosecution, anyone? Clearly stated prosecutorial bias against targets?
Does none of the above bother you, Jim Y?
Please try to actually respond to me. Non sequiturs will be summarily slapped down in the future.

Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 25, 2016 6:44 pm

And those involved in this affair have not complied with the issued Congressional subpoenas.
If they can get away with this then others can too.
Maybe they might be afraid of what might be in any revealed records?
The Democratic party has taken a big hit on their image. So will Republicans take a hit if they won’t do anything.

Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 25, 2016 7:32 pm

And McKibben thinks he’s so important he can’t be called before a Congressional committee and/or

Bryan A
Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 25, 2016 7:45 pm

Boyo boyo Jimmy boyo, talk about mincing words and context, the context of the post clearly states that it is the 20 Attorneys general threatening the use of their power to fight climate change by bringing the force of Law to suppress freedom of speech, as is currently being demonstrated with ExxonMobile, Which is exactly what they are doing in prosecuting those corporations or individuals that speak out against the climate orthodoxy. Al Gore is merely their poster boy, hypocrite, celebrity who wrote a really bad movie and played second banana to a the second worse womanizer that ever held office

August 24, 2016 10:42 am

You should all send a harsh letter to your local newspapers (and yes, to your congressional representatives, but the media are the main thing), and include the graph comparing the temperatures in the atmospheres of Earth (with 0.04% carbon dioxide) and Venus (with 96.5%) provided in my 2010 post, “Venus: No Greenhouse Effect”. Tell them, don’t ask them, to show the American public that even a runaway carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere (from 0.04% to 96.5%) has no warming effect at all upon the global mean temperature, at any level of the atmosphere, over the full range of pressures in Earth’s troposphere. The only thing that affects that global mean temperature is the distance of the planet from the Sun (the graph I provided takes account of that, and shows that the curves for Venus and Earth are essentially the same, despite the huge difference in carbon dioxide in the two atmospheres).
You need to impress upon the media and your political representatives that the situation is NOT “normal”, not due to the usual differences of scientific opinion, but that the consensus “climate science” is NOT REAL, a general scientific incompetence is behind the current POLITICAL “debate”, and all of our supposedly most authoritative, and trusted, institutions have been suborned by this mass delusion.
It is useless to say things like “climate change MAY be real and is probably partially due to anthropogenic causes”. It is incompetent to ignore or dismiss my Venus/Earth temperatures comparison.

August 24, 2016 10:44 am

The AGs should be forced to defend the results of the climate models in court, under oath. This witch hunt is a clear example of blaming others of what you are guilty. It is a pure distraction tactic. Force them to defend to the public the models they are so convinced by. They would be made to look like the fools that they are.

Jim Yushchyshyn
Reply to  CO2isLife
August 24, 2016 5:43 pm

I question climate models myself. They don’t change the basic science.

Jim Yushchyshyn
Reply to  CO2isLife
August 24, 2016 5:46 pm

What basic science you say?
1. Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation.
2. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed.
That is what it took to convince me that humans are causing Earth to warm.

Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 24, 2016 7:17 pm

Does water vapor absorb infrared radiation?
Has upper atmosphere humidity been level for close to two decades?
Do clouds affect earthly temperatures?
Does evaporation cool the oceans?
Does convection move warm air higher?
Do CO2, water vapor, other radiative gases, clouds and whatnot reradiate infrared radiation to space?
And so on.
Give me more of your “basic science.”

Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 24, 2016 10:18 pm

And where does it go, Jim?
That’s the thing about thermodynamics, you need to understand the whole system. Half-answers like what you just gave are why so much of the thermo 1 class always drops from every engineering college in this country.
The CO2 is displacing, what precisely? Oxygen.
Now, this does increase absorption. Because CO2 is at such a lower concentration, it’s infrared band is much less saturated than oxygen’s.
OK, we have a direction, but that says nothing about magnitude. Basic physics says throwing pennies off a train will make it roll, but you won’t get it to Cleveland by throwing your life savings off the caboose. Here, there is a complicated set of interactions that are different for each of Earth’s many biomes. This is the sort of problem that any decent engineer would refuse to model. Because the feedback and be positive, if infrared absorption of water vapor is dominant, or negative, if cloud formation is dominant, and I have no idea what convection will do. Plus, you have the nasty fact that no matter what you model, there will be many effects that we cannot even know, much less quantify.

L.arry O'Leary
Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 24, 2016 11:14 pm

Jim you don’t really seem like you’re in full contact with reality. First, H20 IS water.
The sun side stream of infrared is many times greater than earth’s and therefore the light refraction of CO2 reduces energy to the surface of the planet. Surface energy density reduction is cooling. Not warming. Furthermore addition of CO2 to atmospheric air reduces it’s energy holding capacity – not raises it.
My experience filling scuba tanks many years had me knowing there is no way CO2 warming of the earth could be real, there’s no effect like that in any of gas energy mechanics.
A swift course in standard gas equations puts away any dream of there being warming associated with additional CO2 in any atmospheric mix.

Craig Loehle
Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 25, 2016 6:43 am

Jim: to say CO2 should cause some warming is not sufficient to shut down coal and make everyone’s life miserable and persecute sceptics. We need to know HOW MUCH warming. And then we need good analysis of impacts. An analysis recently showed that due to climate change, US citizens in 2100 instead of being 4 times as wealthy would only be 3x (can’t remember exact numbers), but policies to stop it would make us even poorer. So it matters a great deal. To claim that we can just “decide” to stop warming is naive–it would take a shutdown of the world economy to stop CO2 from rising. Everything depends on fossil fuels.

Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 25, 2016 11:36 am

What about Conservation Of Energy? The only way the consensus can support its insanely high sensitivity is by violating it. This occurs when Bode’s feedback system analysis is applied to the climate which implicitly removes the requirement for COE between the input of the system (forcing) and its output (temperature) by assuming an active amplifier with an implicit power supply (i.e. an internal source of heat) which can add power to the output of the network above and beyond what’s supplied as stimulus.
Strictly speaking, Bode’s analysis is only valid when the input and output are cast into dimensionally equivalent units which is another of the many serious errors mapping climate system feedback into the analysis claimed to support it.
Not only is COE violated by the consensus model, they redefined inputs and outputs to be units W/m^2 input and degrees C output) where COE can not be applied without making temperature equivalent to emissions in W/m^2 so that input and output units are the same. To cover their ass, they then go on to imply that the Stefan-Boltzmann LAW doesn’t apply to relate NET surface emissions to its equivalent average temperature (what about this Law?). I should point out that in satellite data analysis and other places in climate science, the equivalent surface temperature is defined to be the temperature whose ideal BB emissions produces the required energy flux from the surface into the atmosphere, sjnce radiative transfer codes deal in joules, not degrees.
This misconception arises because Trenberth makes it look more complicated than it really is by conflating energy transported by matter with energy transported by photons when only the energy transported by photons has anything to do with the RADIATIVE balance of the planet. The energy transported by matter is a net zero sum at the surface and any effect is might have is already accounted for by the resulting average surface temperature whose NET radiative emissions consequential to that temperature and given exactly by the SB LAW are all that’s relevant.
It’s the twisted, tortured path along which climate science has progressed in order to justify ignoring the laws of physics without appearing to do so is what got us into this mess in the first place.

Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 25, 2016 4:19 pm

Jim Yushchyshyn: “That is what it took to convince me that humans are causing Earth to warm.”
Dear me!
What a simplistic, utterly linear, scientifically illiterate little creature you are.
Concepts such as ‘logarithmic relationships’ and ‘functions tending to the asymptote’ are apparently totally unknown to you, and yet you have the damn gall to come on a science blog, insult the contributors – the vast majority of whom have made careers based on their scientific training and experience – with your ‘denier’ schtick with all the connotations of Holocaust denial and neo-Nazism associated therewith, and assert that they are unaware of the laws of thermodynamics. And as for non-linear systems…
You really are a piece of work!
As a matter of interest, how old are you?

Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 25, 2016 6:34 pm

What is your position on the principle of the falsifiability of scientific claims? According to the United Nations, falsifiability has been replaced by peer review. Do you agree?

Reply to  CO2isLife
August 25, 2016 7:11 pm

Why should the AGs be forced to defend the results of the climate models in court, under oath? Because, under the U.S. system of justice, prosecutors must defend their contentions in court.

Loren Ellis
August 24, 2016 11:07 am

I lived in Bend for several years. It is a great place, also on the East side of the mountains in the high desert and is not overly influenced by the super left wing enviro nut cases who live from Eugene to Portland.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Loren Ellis
August 24, 2016 11:16 am

That’s all past tense. Bend is just as bad if not worse.

shawn jaeger
Reply to  Joel Snider
August 24, 2016 12:25 pm

Yeah, it’s nickname should be Roundabout, Oregon. 30 + and counting, did not fact check. Even have them on rural roads with a few hundred cars a day, maybe.

Reply to  Joel Snider
August 24, 2016 3:37 pm

Not quite. Yet.
Bend is represented in the OR House and Senate by Republicans.

August 24, 2016 11:16 am

Blowback? Just an eddy in the maelstrom.
Blowback is when there is RICO suit against the #ExxonKnew AG’s.

Reply to  Stephen Rasey
August 25, 2016 1:46 pm

What does “blowback” in this article’s title refer to? I, too, don’t see any significant mention of blowback against AG schneiderman or Rosenblum in this article or in the linked editorial. How is asking questions about “what’s safe to say about climate change” considered blowback?

Mike Maguire
August 24, 2016 12:51 pm

Over the past decade, one group has been very successful at intentionally selecting specific terms, that it defines, which become commonly used terms by everybody. These terms are actually not rooted in facts or truth(often the opposite) but the way they are used, has imparted misleading assumptions and helped to reinforce the brainwash.
Climate change: When this term is used, most people assume it means human caused climate change…………as natural climate change that has and still is happening, is not part of it anymore.
Denier: The term was invented to redefine scientists that question the absolutes of “the science is settled” and “debate is over” mentality. There truly are some “deniers” of the authentic science……..on both sides. It also makes a connection with the original deniers…….of the Holocaust.
Carbon pollution: There really are forms of carbon pollution(black carbon/particulate matter for instance) but the beneficial gas, CO2 is not one of them.
CO2 as pollution: The EPA ruled this to be so in 2009, which enables it to regulate CO2 under the Clean Air Act(GHG’s are harmful because of climate change). Ironically, this was against the voice of the American people and our elected officials, who represented them. In 2008, they voted against Cap and Trade. Of course the table was set by the Supreme Court, prior to this, when they voted 5-4 that the EPA had to make a ruling on this. Long story on this, here is part of it:
Other terms:
Carbon Footprint: Related to the above with regards to how much CO2 pollution that an entity spews into the atmosphere every year. The higher the amount, the more damage that entity is assumed to be doing to the climate.
Carbon Capture and Sequestration: A great deal of effort and resources/cost are planned to capture beneficial CO2 emissions. Many entities advertising plans to do this or cut emissions are seen as friends of the environment/planet……………the same planet that is greening up because of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere.
Climate(other) models: Output/projections from these sources are used and referred to regularly and as the basis for conclusions, without the users realizing that often, they represent speculative theories which have a wide range of realistically possible outcomes, much different than the one(s) being presented by the model.
Greenhouse effect(gases): Seen as bad(pollution). Even though H2O, by far has the greatest greenhouse effect and life on this planet exists because of them. The same life that’s done better when it’s warmer than this with more CO2.
Photosynthesis: Far more important than it’s role as a greenhouse gas, the key role that CO2 plays in this scientific law is the reason we exist. Yet this gets almost no weighting by one side, even as life speaks louder and louder on this(to those who are listening). Here in 2016, the planet continues to green up from increasing carbon dioxide.
CO2 + H2O + photons → [CH2O] + O2
carbon dioxide + water + light energy → carbohydrate + oxygen
Pick your plant to see how much it likes even more CO2:
The most productive food producing region on the planet is once again on a course to smash record crop yields, here in 2016 with assistance from the continuation of the best weather/climate and growing conditions the past 4 decades that we’ve experienced in the past 1,000 years and especially from the increasing CO2:
After reading these realities, maybe we should hold Exon accountable………….to farmers, for the cost of much bigger bins and storage of the massive crops they need to store (-:

Harry Passfield
Reply to  Mike Maguire
August 24, 2016 2:40 pm

Plus 10, Mike. I shall undoubtedly send this round my mailing list. Thank you.

Reply to  Mike Maguire
August 24, 2016 3:54 pm

excellent, Mike
another point for you – CO2 controls human (and animal) respiration in a negative feedback loop

Jim Yushchyshyn
Reply to  Mike Maguire
August 24, 2016 5:47 pm

Check your equation for photosynthesis.
You will note that it also requires water.

Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 24, 2016 7:37 pm

Last I checked H2O was water.

Mike Maguire
Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 24, 2016 7:39 pm

Am I missing something? H2O/water is listed on the left side above.

Reply to  Mike Maguire
August 24, 2016 7:47 pm

Proof that Jim Y has mastered the art of meta-non sequitur “isms.” Don’t even bother to read — just blurt out anything that pops out of the fermenting mess.

Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 24, 2016 7:57 pm

Of course water is required, Jim, but with more CO2, most plants become more drought resistant, since less total air needs to be taken in to get the plant food gas (CO2) needed, allowing fewer stoma and thus less loss of water via transpiration.

Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 25, 2016 4:31 pm

Jim Yushchyshyn: “You will note that it also requires water.”
Oh good grief…
You really don’t have the first clue, do you?

August 24, 2016 1:12 pm

Exactly the right approach! Focus on the Freedom of Speech aspect, and phrase the query in such a way that any response by the Gang of Seventeen or any of their offices could only have two possible outcomes; damning them as repressive of free speech, or confessing to overreach of their duly constituted powers.

August 24, 2016 3:03 pm

Consider yourself lucky if your state governor is even slightly less of an idiot than is Washington State’s governor.

I could while away the hours, conferrin’ with the flowers
Consultin’ with the rain.
And my head I’d be scratchin’ while
my thoughts were busy hatchin’
If I only had a brain.

Donna K. Becker
Reply to  dp
August 24, 2016 3:31 pm

California’s Jerry Brown could have penned that one!

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Donna K. Becker
August 24, 2016 3:46 pm

He’s not that clever.

Donna K. Becker
Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
August 24, 2016 6:48 pm

I guess you’re right. When I confronted him in Century City back in the ’80s, he asserted that Ayn Rand was a Fascist.

Reply to  dp
August 25, 2016 8:58 am

You got that right. Eastern Washington detests the man. I’ve lived here for 60 years and there have been fires every summer, sometimes a few sometimes many. It’s dry here! Dry grass and tumbleweeds burn. Duh.

Walt D.
August 24, 2016 3:51 pm

Since the documents date back to the 70’s do they include specific warnings about nuclear war?
What about now? Are they required to warn about political instability, regime changes, war, nuclear war?

Jim Yushchyshyn
August 24, 2016 5:28 pm

What is safe to say about climate change?
How about asking, “What is safe to say about an exposed electrical cable that may or may not be live?” Or, “What is safe to say about a funky looking liquid that you find in a warehouse that may or may not be poisonous?”

William R
Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 24, 2016 8:23 pm

You beg the question, which is whether or not human impact on climate is non-trivial and dangerous. A more appropriate silly analogy would be: what is safe to say about a funky looking liquid that you find in a company’s warehouse, has been ingested for 20 years by all of planet earth with absolutely no ill effects, and in fact has shown to have some positive effects, despite constant warnings by a competing company to the contrary?

Reply to  William R
August 24, 2016 9:32 pm

Jim continues misdirecting from the point of the post; to wit: threatening litigation, fines, etc to silence critics of the now mandatory narrative of human induced global warming.Irrespective of the “truth/untruth” of AGW, the silencing of those real scientists who question the science of AGW is alarming for many reasons. Which is what the post is about. Diverting into a “debate” over the reality of AGW is out of place in this thread, especially for the majority of WUWT followers who are AGW skeptics: This is the tactic of a troll.

L.arry O'Leary
Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 24, 2016 10:48 pm

Jim Yushchyshyn you sound like someone who never measured anything for money, in your entire life. Matter of fact you sound like some out of contact computer programmer who thought James Hansens’ various scams are real.
Your other hero Phil Jones spilled the beans in Feb 2010 when he confessed it hadn’t warmed a whit since 1998; in fact it had cooled a little bit. Check the Feb 2010 BBC Phil Jones interview where he explained what he’d meant in 2005 when he told scientist John Christie
”The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world cooled since 1998. Ok it has but it’s only seven years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.”
You sound like you’re on some kind of intoxicants and didn’t hear about how transparent and easy to spot government chemistry scams are. If the government tells you pot is like heroin don’t buy that either.

Eugene WR Gallun
August 24, 2016 7:55 pm

Oregon has a long history of debate about “paper or plastic” bags in its supermarkets with ever changing laws mandating one or the other.
(We won’t go into the use of “re-cycled paper bags” that at the slightest touch of water fell apart and about the piles of food on the sidewalks within 15 yards of the supermarkets. It rains all the time in Oregon.)
So which side of that debate should our attorney general investigate — paper or plastic?
Eugene WR Gallun

August 24, 2016 9:52 pm

They do not have the science so here comes the law.
If I have missed the follow up I apologize… where do matters stand on Shukla et al? That seems like a tailor made case of climate corruption mixed with a call to use RICO against us. If nobody else is working on it I will.

August 24, 2016 11:56 pm

Jim Yushchyshyn
August 24, 2016 at 5:32 pm

I believe that Churchill would say that Peer Review is the worst possible system, except for anything else.
If you don’t believe that, come up with a better system, and plan a trip to Stockholm to collect a Nobel Prize.

Well, we know in real Science that Peer Review is never warranted to deliver the given truth , whereas the Internet provides for the Publication and full Review of everything.
But we can also predict that to get a Nobel Prize it will soon be necessary to include Shariah Law Science or else be Peer-Review Banned as a raaaacist, Islamophobe, Xenophobe, or the equivalent.
Therefore I submit and will receive a Nobel Prize for this improvement, which obviously assigns certitude to whatever is said:
“Mecca is the Center of the World!”

Joshua Flynn
August 25, 2016 2:32 am

It’s pretty obvious that Jim Yushchyshyn is paid to defend climate change, given the lack of substance in his comments. But what is even more disturbing is that, despite being in receipt of funds to post falsified information, he proceeds to defend the Orwellian censorship of contrary points of view by persecution of the state, which is the same kind of stance the so-called ‘catholic church’ had to Galileo, imprisoning him for daring challenging state mandated taboo.
When will Jim stop defending state level censorship (the fact he can post here freely is ironic – he enjoys freedom of speech for his own views but won’t defend others) and actually start advocating the freedom of scientific process to openly debate and dispute topics?
The government has never complained about receiving corporate funding or corporate sponsored studies (indeed, the EPA, FDA etc allow corporations to ‘self-regulate’, whatever that means, by conducting their own studies themselves)… until now.

August 25, 2016 6:29 am

They are all aiming for Soros dollars.

August 25, 2016 9:56 am

Amen @Joshua Flynn and Resource Guy:
Many of the minions of people like Soros, Obama, Hillary, etc, make a ‘living’ by trying to subvert the Constitution and the very idea of a fact based reality, and at the same time they seem to want and *need* Totalitarianism in order to face life, via their pursuit of the “Double-Plus Ungood” method of thought ~aka, “Rhetoric over Reality” or untethered verbiage producing “Perception is Reality Delusionalism”.
Well, “Dying ain’t much of a livin’, Boy.” – Clint Eastwood, “The Outlaw Josey Wales”

August 25, 2016 11:24 am

Ominously, In the opening paragraphs of IPCC AR4, the UN announces that “nullius in verba” has been superseded as an organizing principle for science by peer review. In the new order our masters are to be referees!

August 25, 2016 9:44 pm

Yes Exxon must say …. Shareholders please be seated this may come as a terribly big surprise …
Climate Changes . Yes hard to fathom we know . It can get warmer or colder and the fossil fuels we sell unfortunately won’t stop global cooling . They will continue to provide the quality of life we all enjoy and they will add to the earth’s current warming trend until the cooling trend starts again . . Obviously the warmer it gets we are likely to sell less fossil fuels . We thought you should know that .
Any questions ? Madame … Are all the other fossil fuel companies being defamed as well or is Exxon part of a sue/ settle campaign ?
Next question please .

Reply to  Amber
August 26, 2016 9:13 pm

Large U.S. companies are where the money is. No point in suing Joe Lunchbucket.
And what about union busting? Coal miners union members sure took a hit.

August 28, 2016 10:12 am

“No State shall, without the Consent of Congress…enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State…”
US Constitution, Art. I, Section 10
These AGs, making this agreement in their official capacities as the chief law-enforcement officers of their respective States, are, in fact, violating the supreme law of the land, the United States Constitution. Any suit by them would fail immediately under the “clean hands” doctrine.

August 28, 2016 1:02 pm

AG’s for hire is more appropriate . Did they declare they were lobbyist’s before running for office ?
Who is paying their salaries while acting as lobbyist’s ? How can they act without conflict when they
are lobbying for any industry let alone one that has fleeced tax payers of $$billions in loan guarantees and out right grants before declaring bankruptcy ?
How many, if any State Governors and legislators , were advised and approved their respective AG lobby activities ?
Who of their staff were told to or volunteered to spend their time and tax payers money organizing the staged lobby press conference , travel ,accommodation, etc . Who had the lobbyist’s sign done up and who paid for it ?
What are the guidelines that prohibit this flagrant breach of trust ? Are all public employees authorized to conduct lobby efforts , using their job titles and resources of tax payers ? Not likely .
What other industries have these AG’s been lobbying for ?

Reply to  Amber
August 28, 2016 10:19 pm

Amber, I believe your fundamental thrust is correct; the AGs’ actions will benefit particular industries. In fact, the AGs stated that one of their motivations was to support the President’s Clean Power Plan, presumably renewables and all.
After a number of other AGs pointed out that supposed fraud could cut the other way, because CAGW proponents/industries may have mislead investors, all but NY and MA pulled back. Their stunts with green NGOs and Al Gore may come back to bite them.
Dave Fair

August 28, 2016 1:17 pm

daveginoly … Right you are . They have also conspired to shame and thus restrict competition by threatening one sector of the energy industry while they lobby for another . They have targeted one energy company out of thousands in the energy field to use as a scap goat and to crucify without any actual proof of wrong doing and because they see them as a threat to their lobby efforts .
Who funded the AG’s lobby ?

Reply to  Amber
August 28, 2016 9:12 pm

The thing for elements of the energy industry to do is to sue for fraud. Why the demonstrated reluctance to do so I don’t know.

Reply to  Terry Oldberg
August 28, 2016 9:57 pm

It’s my understanding that U.S. AGs cannot be sued for things such as fraud. I think the best an individual or corporation could try for is violation of a Constitutionally protected right. Bring lots of dollars, though; their protector prints money.
I’ve thought of something like malicious prosecution, but anything is a stretch when you try to sue the government or its agents. I don’t know if you could go after them in their personal capacity in some way.
Conspiracy to deprive someone of a Constitutional right could ensnare those colluding NGOs. I assume a nonprofit like the one subpoenaed by the VI AG would have a better chance.

Reply to  dogdaddyblog
August 29, 2016 7:52 am

The target I have in mind is not employees or agencies of the federal government but rather non-governmental employers of global warming pseudoscientists such as research universities. UCAR would be a good choice, for example.

September 5, 2016 9:33 am
%d bloggers like this: