News of the Litigation against Climate Alarmism

Guest opinion by Leo Goldstein

I filed a new set of responses to various motions to dismiss in the RICO lawsuit Goldstein v. Climate Action Network et al. I also verified the original Complaint, filed on September 12.

Some of the facts are well known, such as the quote from Prince Philip, the husband of Her Majesty Queen of England, when he was WWF President:

I must confess that I am tempted to ask for reincarnation as a particularly deadly virus …

The copy of the book page with this quote is filed as Exhibit A1.

The most substance and the least legalese are in the Brief in Support of Response to Motions by WWF, Climate Action Network etc. (pdf), and Exhibits, shedding light on WWF, Ceres, and CAN, filed together with the Brief and Declarations (zip).

The Brief sheds additional light on Ceres, Inc., and the “coalition” between climate alarmist groups and pension funds / state treasuries that it runs. Ceres shamelessly attempts to divert $44 Trillion from the public funds and even private investments of ordinary people into what it calls “clean energy,” which looks very much like pockets of the climate alarmists and their supporters. And their supporters range in size and greed from former unemployed cartoonists to hedge fund billionaires. Ceres’ website also says that a Trillion dollars is not a big number!

Working on the Brief, I understood how a think tank named Africa Fighting Malaria had gotten on the subpoena that U.S. Virginia Island’s Claude Walker recently served Exxon:

“In 2004, Richard Tren of Africa Fighting Malaria and Roger Bate of the American Enterprise Institute wrote: ‘One of the most vociferous campaigners against the use of DDT has been the World Wildlife Fund’ (Ex. B1, page 6).”

Walker’s subpoena, filed as Exhibit J, deserves more public attention than it has received so far. Mr. Walker requested from Exxon not only all information it might have about dozens political associations, disliked by the Democratic Party, but also about prominent climate realists (named individuals), and about ALL “climate skeptics”. The demanded information included “gestures” (no kidding!) and video recordings, apparently including security video recordings on individual ExxonMobil gas stations.

WUWT has recently covered 2012 Climate Accountability “Workshop”, which had come up with the shake down – shut down strategy against the energy industries, apparently serving a blueprint for “AGs United for Clean Power”. The self-report from that ‘workshop’ has been filed as Exhibit C, and addressed in the Brief:

“A quote from the self-report of that workshop shows its dominant paradigm:

’A tobacco fight is now the climate fight.’ (Ex. C, page 9)

Tobacco is an addictive and extremely harmful substance, and the elimination of smoking was a noble goal. Attempts to shut down tobacco manufacturers were considered by some groups as legitimate ways to achieve that goal. Unlike tobacco, fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas) are necessities of our society, and are not harmful at all. Fossil fuels provide nearly 100% of our transportation needs, more than 70% of the electrical power, and many essential agricultural fertilizers. Shutting down the fossil fuel industries would mean death of tens of millions of men, women, and children. The Moving Defendants are attempting to shut down the national fossil fuels industries to satisfy their greed, lust for power, and to please their foreign masters, such as WWF-International and certain UN politicians.

Another quote from the self-report:

‘[T]his participant [an unnamed lawyer] also emphasized the advantage of asking courts to do things they are already comfortable doing, noting that ‘Even if your ultimate goal might be to shut down a company, you still might be wise to start out by asking for compensation for injured parties’’ (Exhibit C, page 13).

The participants in the ‘workshop’ also planned to file SLAPP suits against those who disagreed with them:

‘Pennsylvania State University’s Michael Mann, for instance, has worked with a lawyer to threaten libel lawsuits for some of the things written about him in the media, and has already won one such case in Canada’ (Exhibit C, page 13).”

On another topic, I enabled the public access to a customized Axis Search (Climate Alarmism – Global Governance – Leftist Radicalism) on my site. This focused search engine includes about two dozen sites showing connections between allegedly independent political actors. These sites have been extremely helpful in preparing the original Complaint and other filings in the pending lawsuit. The strong organizational overlap (not only connections) between all three structures, supporting the Axis label, came to my attention only recently.

Advertisements

73 thoughts on “News of the Litigation against Climate Alarmism

  1. Wikileaks should help strengthen the linkages and bring some of the satellite players and bagmen.

    • Interesting, but it’s so broad in scope, I don’t see how it can possibly succeed. If it was simply aimed at the attorneys general coalition, it would have a very good case (Serious, AGs for Clean Power is as blatant a violation of the neutrality of the courts as you can imagine). However, fighting everyone at once is impossible. Even if you can keep it from being dismissed, they can simply drown you in briefs and motions, a legal Denial of Service, dragging this out indefinitely.

  2. This post is not the best … or I am losing my powers of recollection & reasoning.
    Please can someone set-forth clearly what the correspondent is trying to say (maybe [s]he is a Lawyer and can only communicate in legalese short-hand [is that tautological?]) but if lay-people like me are going to Help The Good Fight, it behoves clear enunciation of the proposition and the basic argumentation.
    Tom Halla, as usual, speaks wisdom as to funding. I have no bright ideas on this, but unless “WE” come up with solutions, “we” are lost.
    This may be an asinine suggestion, but why do the Energy Majors not establish a ‘Trust’ (or something equivalent) for the Promotion of the Advantages of (Wo)Mankind Harnessing Energy? They are so busy running for cover … and achieving little … that maybe the time is ripe to float an Armada, all flags flying, in support of The Cause.
    Having said, I would assume that there are bodies out there already beavering away on the same agenda (but underfunded and relatively insignificant compared with the alarmist Band-wagon??) but what about synergy — an Alliance perhaps — and sticking it to the Luddites and backward thinking. Maybe I’m ill-informed, and this is happening all around — where can I find them?
    So-what if Exxon donates $10 m. to the Trust (whose Aims wd have to be carefully articulated). Stop running for cover and celebrate what exploitable, cheap Energy has done for (Wo)Mankind
    I’d give ’em $1000 for starters!

    • Besides not knowing who will win the upcoming election, why would Exxon Mobil go on offense against politicians who can deny permits and change tax rules to punish them? That could be suicide.

      • Agree – the energy companies also have to be very careful to avoid the appearance of monopolistic collusion. Too much ‘togetherness’ in support of fossil energy would surely be regarded as a violation of anti-trust law.

      • That’s also why they are standing alone. No one else wants to get into the crosshairs. My own employer included.

        Punitive inspections shouldn’t be a problem in states that aren’t in on this like Texas, and it’s definitely illegal. However, it doesn’t mean it won’t happen.

  3. What can be compared to the tobacco industry however, is the United Nations. Based on inductivism, United Nations is pushing Climate change scare mongering.

    Here are the Final findings of the court in the racketeering lawsuit against the major cigarette manufacturers: The U.S. Government’s racketeering case against Big Tobacco

    If I may, I would like to rewrite the final findings of the court to illustrate that United Nations is comparable to the Tobacco industry:

    Final Findings: (Rewritten – for illustration only):
    Based on the evidence presented in a hypothetical case against United Nations, the court may rule that:
    – United Nations knew for fifty years or more that CO2 is primarily a plant fertilizer, but repeatedly stated that CO2 caused adverse climate change. United Nations publicly distorted and maximized the hazards of CO2 for decades.

    – United Nations concealed and suppressed research data and other evidence showing CO2 has little effect on climate, and withheld information from the public and governments.

    – United Nations acted this way to maintain revenue by keeping people alarmed and attracting new supporters, to avoid liability, and prevent reformation of the United Nations.

    – United Nations falsely denied that they can and do control the information intended to create and sustain climate change alarmism.

    – United Nations falsely marketed and promoted CO2 emission as harmful, to keep governments alarmed to sustain and increase the revenue to United Nations for administration of the climate funds and ridiculous and arbitrary projects financed by these funds.

    – From the 1980s to the present, United Nations, using different methods, have intentionally marketed CO2 as harmful to young people under the age of 21 in order to recruit “replacement alarmists” who would ensure the future economic viability of the United Nations.

    – United Nations publicly denied, while internally acknowledging, that energy poverty is hazardous to the poor.

    – At various times, United Nations attempted to, and did suppress and conceal scientific research relevant to their public and litigation positions.

    • Science or Fiction – November 4, 2016 at 5:44 pm

      What can be compared to the tobacco industry however, is the United Nations. Based on inductivism, United Nations is pushing Climate change scare mongering.

      S or F, me thinks that you are 100% WRONG about your above “comparison” of the tobacco industry to the United Nations.

      “DUH”, as far as I know, and I have been buying and smoking cigarettes since the early 1950’s, …. the tobacco industry or tobacco companies have never ever engaged in any form of “scare mongering”. There ain‘t no way in hell that a tobacco company could “scare” an individual or the public into ONLY smoking or chewing their brand of tobacco. If one tried it, they wouldn’t have to worry about the government suing them because the other tobacco companies sure as hell would.

      And iffen you haven’t already guessed the “reason” why the government won that “racketeering lawsuit” against “big tobacco”, the answer is obvious, to wit:

      The following quoted text was excerpted from, to wit:
      http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/The_U.S._Government%27s_racketeering_case_against_Big_Tobacco

      to counteract the growing body of scientific evidence showed cigarettes were harmful,

      Because the DOJ sought only equitable relief, and because such relief is only granted by a judge, the case was not heard by a jury, but a single Federal judge, Gladys Kessler of U.S. District Court.

      “DUH”, just like the claimed “causes” of CAGW, … no one has ever presented actual, factual evidence or proofs that cigarette smoke itself is a direct cause of any sickness or deaths of any humans.

      When the “money grubbing” opportunists figured out that “cigarettes and cigarette smoke” was one hell of a lucrative “cash cow” …… the “fear mongers“, the “funded interest” groups and the “tax n’ spend” politicians quickly jumped on the “No-smoking band wagon” to extort their fair share of the “free money” that would be extorted from the tobacco purchasing citizens via the tobacco companies..

      And it all began by sheer accident in 1971, as defined by this once published commentary authored by the American Cancer Society, to wit:

      This casual acceptance of smoking was the norm when the American Cancer Society’s Great American Smokeout went nationwide more than 25 years ago in November 1977.That quarter century has marked dramatic changes in the way society views tobacco promotion and tobacco use. Many public places and work areas are now smoke-free which protects non-smokers and supports smokers who want to quit.

      The American Cancer Society’s Great American Smokeout event grew out of a 1971 event in Randolph, MA, in which Arthur P. Mullaney asked people to give up cigarettes for a day and donate the money they would have spent on cigarettes to a high school scholarship fund. In 1974, Lynn R. Smith, editor of the Monticello Times in Minnesota, spearheaded the state’s first D-Day, or Don’t Smoke Day. The idea caught on, and on Nov. 18, 1976, the California Division of the American Cancer Society succeeded in getting nearly one million smokers to quit for the day. The first national Great American Smokeout was held in 1977.

      During the next 25 years the Smokeout was celebrated with rallies, parades, stunts, quitting information, and even “cold turkey” menu items in schools, workplaces, Main Streets, and legislative halls throughout the US.

      The Great American Smokeout has helped to spotlight the dangers of tobacco use and the challenges of quitting, but more importantly, it has set the stage for the cultural revolution in tobacco control that has occurred over this period.

      Because of the efforts of individuals and groups that have led anti-tobacco efforts, there have been significant landmarks in the areas of research, policy, and the environment: [Please note that there was no mention of any landmarks associated with human health, sickness or deaths.]

      In 1977, Berkeley, California became the first community to limit smoking in restaurants and other public places.

      In 1983, San Francisco passed the first strong workplace smoking restrictions, including bans on smoking in private workplaces.

      In 1990, the federal smoking ban on all interstate buses and domestic flights of six hours or less took effect.

      In 1994, the state of Mississippi filed the first of 24 state lawsuits seeking to recuperate millions of dollars from tobacco companies for smokers’ Medicaid Bills.

      In 1999, the Department of Justice filed suit against cigarette manufacturers, charging the industry with defrauding the public by lying about the risks of smoking.

      In 1999, the Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) was passed, requiring tobacco companies to pay $206 billion to 45 states by the year 2025 to cover Medicaid costs of treating smokers. The MSA agreement also closed the Tobacco Institute and ended cartoon advertising and tobacco billboards.

      And there ya have it folks, the tremendous success of “cash cow” extortions of the public’s money by the Anti-Cigarette Smoking Flim-Flammer ……. is now being repeated by the “cash cow” extortions of the public’s money by the money-hungry Flim-Flamming proponents of CAGW.

      • I agree that the tobacco industry has not engaged in any scare mongering.

        My intention was to demonstrate, by replacing words in the section: “Final Findings” in the Wikipedia article I linked to, that the form of the argument used against the tobacco industry could be used against United Nations.

        In my opinion, the form of the argument fits better an argument against United Nations and the climate industry than it does an argument against the fossil fuel industry.

  4. The precedent set by the tobacco suit was one of the worst things that can happen. It was based on sketchy science (if you think otherwise then you likely don’t understand why p-values prove nothing and statistics in general doesn’t either) and achieved nothing. NC used its share of the settlement to invest in tobacco.

    • DAV says: “and statistics in general doesn’t either”

      Keep your day-time job, and don’t even think of getting a job in the insurance industry or a career as an actuary.

    • (previously misplaced) While I was talking about proving things (go back and reread if you must) so all of this about actuary tables and insurance companies is non sequitur and straw man.

      science a hypothesis is never “proven.”… It can be falsified

      You should be aware that statistics is only a tool in the process and cannot do neither.

      • DAV says: ” statistics is only a tool in the process and cannot do neither.”

        Nope

        Statistics can falsify a hypothesis. Do you have a clue as to the underlying methodology behind statistical mechanics and/or quantum theory?

      • if you have made no postulate to test, you’re not doing it right.
        if the test doesn’t have a yes or no answer, you’re not doing it right.
        if your test doesn’t prove anything, then wtf are you doing?

        (anything that is true can be proven. one simple way is to falsify any alternative. try to prove that there is a truth that can not be proven and you are examining mysticism.)

      • You tell them, DAV.

        Tell them that the only thing that “statistics can prove” ……. is “who won the bet”.

        And that is because “statistics” are like “percentages”, …. they both are a per se “snapshot” of a “one (1) time event” …… that most likely can not and/or will never be repeated.

        Both “statistical” and “percentage” (numerical) values, …. are abstract entities.

    • DAV, I agree with you in principle, but disagree with your reasoning.

      The main problem is that tobacco was never banned. IF they had banned tobacco and then filed suit, I would disagree in principle, since it is effectively a retroactive law, but I would accept it. Not banning tobacco while suing the pants off them is despicable hypocrisy. It is quite clearly a retroactive tax, and effectively a writ of attainder as well.

      It was simply a financial shakedown of the industry.

      • Ben, you can fill your mouth with Tic-Tacs, but when you kiss and grab the genitals of a woman who smokes, the stink of tobacco is sickening.

      • Richard

        Thanks for moving the conversation along by sharing lessons learned from your quality time with interesting ladies in (presumably) interesting bars…

      • What does that have to do with anything Richard? I’m talking about consistency in law enforcement, not getting myself arrested or severely injured (you obviously have never met any Texas women talking like that). What they should have done is
        A: Ban tobacco and leave the companies alone
        B: Leave it all alone and put warnings on. Maybe raise Taxes.
        C: Ban tobacco and put punitive fines on the companies. (Not as good as the other two from a constitutional perspective)

        Instead they chose option D: Leave the tobacco regulations as they were and extort money from the companies. It’s a matter of having their cake and eating it too, and it has no grounds legally except for the shakiest of premises that they had funded research that supported their points.

    • And me thinks WV used/using the “Lion’s Share” of its share of the settlement $$ to pay for the care and treatment of the “druggies”, …… which includes medical (Dr’s, EMT’s, hospitals, etc.) costs and all costs associated with Rehab Centers.

      And when those “druggies” graduate from those Rehab Centers they are given “disability” status, which is a “free lunch ticket” that permits them to “feed” at the government trough. Aka: a “troughfeeder”.

  5. While I was talking about proving things (go back and reread if you must) so all of this about actuary tables and insurance companies is non sequitur and straw man.

      • Then I suppose you don’t think this person does either.
        http://wmbriggs.com/

        Look up what he has to say about p-values and the use of statistics in finding causal relationships. He is not alone.
        What do you think statistics actually does?

      • Who said statistics “finds” causal relationships? You really are displaying a lack of understanding of the subject matter here.

        Good thing you’re not doing statistical analysis in the area of drug discovery for major pharmaceutical companies.

      • Who said statistics “finds” causal relationships?

        No one. That’s science’s job. Finding a correlation proves nothing in and of itself. Yet many of the papers in epidemiology and medicine tacitly claim just that by citing this p-value thing.

      • DAV says: ” Finding a correlation proves nothing in and of itself.”

        DAV, please tell me what happens when the correlation value is 1.0 ?

    • PS DAV, why don’t you explain to all of us why the providers of health insurance requires you to pay more if you consume tobacco products? You stated that: “It was based on sketchy science”

      • Because they can. They are also using studies which not only are inconclusive but overlook inconvenient facts such as the rate of not getting lung cancer is nearly the same in both smokers and non-smokers.The rate of getting cancer in smokers is around 0.2%. Smoking is a trigger at best and only in certain people.

      • LMAO
        ..
        DAV says: ” the rate of not getting lung cancer is nearly the same in both smokers and non-smokers.”
        ..
        However you seem to ignore the fact that the rate of getting lung cancer in smokers is astronomically higher than in non smokers.

        You are funny……keep posting

      • No. it’s not astronomical. Where did you get that idea? It goes from 0.015% in non-smokers to 0.2%.in smokers Nearly at the noise level for both. these used to be on the CDC site but have been disappeared. I suppose you think AGW is real because you read about it a lot.

      • Keep on smoking DAV……and if you are a smoker, I challenge you to a 3 mile run any day of the week.

      • I don’t smoke but I’m also aware that the ‘facts’ overlook the many people who are age 80+ who do. If smoking were such as you seem to think then how do you explain them? The fact is, no one does statistical studies to determine if intercepting high speed lead projectiles with you head is a bad thing. It’s an obvious outcome. Statistics are use to find things (anymore, that is) that are far from obvious and relatively rare. meaning not significant enough to worry about.

        Be skeptical of the things you hear coming from epidemiologist. Their methods are blatant misuse of statistics. It doesn’t help they were actually taught this way.

        please tell me what happens when the correlation value is 1.0 ?

        It never is except in small or contrived data sets. You think Young’s Modulus gives perfect results? Guess again There are errors in every calculation if only because the inputs have errors..

        You can’t find a causal relationship with only two variables. See Judea Pearl on causality.
        With three variables it is possible to identify (but not prove) three causal relationships out of a possible twelve.

        It takes experiment (a way of injecting additional variables) and careful reasoning to determine cause and even then it’s not proven in the real world.

      • Yes, Richard.They are political and based on the same faulty science. Go to RealScience.com for similar statements about CO2.

      • DAV asks: ” then how do you explain them?”

        I ask DAV how many of the ones that have smoked, never made it to age 80?
        …..
        Next DAV says: “Their methods are blatant misuse of statistics”

        Except that their methods were spot on with the recent breakout of the Ebola virus in Africa.

        DAV says about a correlation value of 1.0: “It never is except in small or contrived data sets.”

        I suggest you measure the correlation value between the height of a dropped object and it’s velocity upon impact with the ground. The value is EXACTLY 1.0…….seriously DAV, you don’t have a very good knowledge of statistics do you?

        Now DAV says: “You can’t find a causal relationship with only two variables” ….if the correlation value is 1.0, the relationship is causal. Really, did you flunk statistcs 101????????

      • two continue the please tell me what happens when the correlation value is 1.0 , did you know there is a very high correlation between the price of rum and New England preacher salaries. The correlation is quite real and not coincidental and neither causes the other. The example is used in statistics course (of which I’ve had a few to put it mildly) to illustrate the problems with drawing conclusions when only two variables are uses.


        And just to be clear about using more than two variables. It means examining their interrelationships and not plugging them into a regression.

      • DAV says: “there is a very high correlation between the price of rum and New England preacher salaries” …


        OK, is the value 1.0 or is it .999?
        ….
        Please be precise in your response because you have shown that you are mathematically inept in all of your previous responses.

      • I suggest you measure the correlation value between the height of a dropped object and it’s velocity upon impact with the ground. The value is EXACTLY 1.0

        Well, no it is not. The value you think it’s correlated with is the result of a calculation. You are making the deadly sin of reification where the model is the reality. No two measurements are identical. There are errors in each and every one. This applies to all things.

      • Rats, misplaced it again.

        OK, is the value 1.0 or is it .999?

        You missed the point. The actual value irrelevant.

        This is going nowhere.
        Cheers!

      • LMAO @ DAV
        ..
        DAV says: “Well, no it is not”

        Not only are you ignorant of statistics, you are ignorant of basic physics.
        ..
        v=sqrt(2*g*h)

        Run the experiment if you doubt the correlation.

      • DAV says: “The actual value irrelevant.”
        ….
        I will suggest that you keep your post in mind the next time you write a check to pay for your insurance policy.

      • DAV, it’s a small fraction, but a 20x risk ratio is quite significant when you have a sample size of America.

  6. I have asked this before, can you guys put an @ plus a name before a comment . Occasionally it is hard to tell who the reply is aimed at, thanks everyone.

  7. Anyone who takes the times to delve into the “who” and “what” of Ceres will most certainly come away in disbelief and horror in the reach of that Nexus of Corruption..

    Trump’s “Drain the Swamp” would only be a first step for dealing with the filfth that is Ceres. Going in and pulling the vipers out of their holes, e.g. Search warrants on their records and computers, and then cutting their heads off with a RICO conspiracy prosecution comes to mind as step 2.

  8. Observation: at some point, micturition contests are best conducted off-line between the two parties. Dragging the rest of us through this flame war isn’t even close to interesting reading.

  9. DAV says, “I suggest you measure the correlation value between the height of a dropped object and it’s velocity upon impact with the ground. The value is EXACTLY 1.0.”

    Well, no it is not. If we conduct the experiment in a perfect vacuum and with perfect measurements and if the difference between the maximum height and the minimum height is such that the gravitational force can be considered constant in that range, then the impact velocity is proportional to the square root of the drop height. Thus, while the RANK correlation will be 1, the LINEAR correlation will not be 1. If the min/max height difference is substantial, then the gravitational force exerted on the dropped mass is not constant and the square root relationship no longer holds exactly. If you drop a feather from varying heights in your back yard on a windy day, neither rank correlation nor linear correlation will be anywhere near to 1.

    My point here is not to give a lesson in physics, but to point out that we often make sweeping assumptions without specifying them, and then extend the results into realms where the assumptions no longer hold. If I can screw up the relationship between drop height and impact velocity with a little bit of air resistance and by dropping a feather versus a bowling ball, imagine what I can do the temperature/CO2 relationship with sunlight, volcanism, ocean currents, cloud cover, seasonal vegetation cover, albedo, …

    Statistics can be a valuable tool, but only when used properly.

    On the question of PROVING a theory, as Einstein said, “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right, but a single experiment can prove me wrong.”

  10. Mr. Goldstein, you’re a kind of hero, putting your time and money where your mouth is, and risking yourself to stand up to these corrupt people. Keep up the good work.

  11. Money laundering is illegal. Yet ceres and tides to name but two, openly admit to doing it?

    How does that work?

  12. From all previous studies, models and speculation, it is evident that science wandering in this area like a fly without a head. There is no attempt to find out the true cause of climate change, not only on our planet, but on all planets in our solar system. Many invent some problems that come from the universe, and of them knows anything.
    Why is science abandoned all logic and run to know something from the PC and the “golden calf” called MODEL. And some data obtained through telescopes, radiation and God knows what else.
     E, my scientists, have to give some logical information as an educational tool to help orientation with the true causes of any phenomenon, including this relating to climate change. I tried many times to get involved in solving these puzzles, but without any success, because there is no one who is interested to know the truth, because the truth has no earnings. Earnings are high only on fraud, deceit and imaginary phenomena intimidate the masses, in order to give them more money.
    Remember, everyone !! Climate change on the planets are due to the mutual influence of the planets and the sun, having its origins in mutual exchanges, mainly magnetism, and based on that and the forces that influence the behavior of how the core of the planet and the sun.
    Sunspots do not contribute to climate change, these are just indicators of the above changes. The cycle of about 11 years, causing four planets, while others give more cycles with a much stronger influence. Cycles of about 44 to 46 years, can cause more changes, and those of hundreds and even thousands of years, can cause ice ages as well as the reverse effect.

Comments are closed.