Law enforcement climate schemers get exposed by TV ads


(Washington, DC)  Climate Litigation Watch, a project of the public interest law firm Government Accountability & Oversight, P.C., has released new television ads running in five states, informing Marylanders, New Mexicans, Oregonians, Pennsylvanians and Virginians of recently unearthed details of their states’ attorneys general involvement in a national scheme to place privately funded special prosecutors in state AG offices to pursue issues of concern to the donor.

Each ad shows specific records obtained from each state, and cites to troubling aspects of the unprecedented arrangement, from New Mexico’s promise to use the privately funded prosecutors “to identify ‘pressure points’ on which litigation can be used to most effectively influence policy” on matters of concern to the donor — while the parties agreed to not draw media attention to their deal — to the apparent violations of state law in Oregon and Virginia.

By statute, these “Special Assistant Attorneys General” have the same authority as the AG; by agreement, they are expressly to pursue an ideological agenda, using the state’s top law enforcement office in a mercenary fashion, as a tool to investigate individuals, businesses and organizations who oppose that agenda.

The ads are based on a recent report, “Law Enforcement for Hire”, which cites to hundreds of source documents, many revealed for the first time and all obtained after more than two years of investigation, document requests and, in numerous cases, litigation. Citing to key records from each AG’s office, the exposés lay out the tie-ups between a “Center” funded by New York billionaire activist Michael Bloomberg, and various state AGs across the country.  Each AG specifically requested the outside group provide attorney salaries and benefits, as well as other “services that may be available to your offices on individual matters”, including still more attorneys, and public relations advocacy, to “advance progressive…legal positions” on specific issues.

These arrangements cry out for legislative oversight of how law enforcement came to be used in this way, and how AGs could claim they had no relevant statutory professional responsibility limitations.

The ads can be seen on YouTube or


New Mexico




0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Crispin in Waterloo but really in Beijing
October 31, 2018 12:11 am

It may be that the court of public opinion will convict said special AG’s.

Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo but really in Beijing
October 31, 2018 1:14 am

People outside America may wonder why the TV ads. The AGs are up for election on Nov. 6.

Elected AGs are a blessing and a curse. It makes them explicitly political creatures on the one hand. On the other hand it means they can be removed at the next election. Some people think it’s a harmful practice. link

American politicians spend an obscene amount of time fundraising. link Would you rather have your AG working at her job or would you rather have her spending half her time raising funds for the next election?

Dodgy Geezer
Reply to  commieBob
October 31, 2018 2:07 am

I’d rather have him doing his job, but if he doesn’t raise funds for his election he soon won’t be able to do it.

Why can’t the US elect people who are meant to be political, and employ permanent staff for jobs that are meant to be non-political? That’s the way the UK does it….

Reply to  Dodgy Geezer
October 31, 2018 2:34 am

That’s the way Australia, Canada, New Zealand & Ireland do it; in all these countries such officials are not elected.

The USA is way out on it’s own with elected police chiefs, Atourny generals, judges etc.

Reply to  Bill
October 31, 2018 3:05 am

He has … sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

That is the reason. Note that this does not eliminate the possibility of “bad” heads of law enforcement, any more than it eliminates the possibility of “bad” law makers – but it reduces the incidence, and allows for their removal.

Do you really think that an appointed bureaucrat Attorney General would not be abusing his or her office exactly in this manner, if appointed by a follower of the Climate Change Cult? I don’t – and would have no means of removing them from that office.

Reply to  Bill
October 31, 2018 4:32 am

it’s a hangover from the day of the spoils system as I understand it. Britain outlawed this practice of the winner basically getting to set the rules with nepotism in employment being accepted.

Not every system in the world is fair or just, they all have strengths and weaknesses and are in different stages of ebb and flow.

In Oz we have political appointees mixed in with ordinary bureaucrats in various departments and positions, generally the political appointees go if there’s a change in government but not always – the downside for us is the ministers seem to have largely outsourced their jobs to these same bureaucrats and once they’re entrenched and writing their own rules (euphemistically referred to as policies) there’s eff all anyone can do to get rid of them.

By way of example our WA police have been caught on many occasions breaking the law – their response is to use their granted powers to fine tune the laws to suit themselves and retrospectively cover their butts.

The first example that came to mind as I write is regarding speed cameras – the overarching law is all measuring devices must by law be checked and calibrated by Weights and Measures.. when an employee of that branch contested a ticket it was revealed the police radars had never been calibrated.. certainly not by W&M – by law all prior traffic infringements should have been binned but what happened? yup – the Minister had granted them sufficient power to make changes to the law and so they did – now ALL police radar are deemed calibrated whether they are or not, W&M jurisdiction has been waived, and no matter what devices, GPS, evidence you present in your defense, the law deems these radars 100% accurate and unable to be challenged – this was also made retroactive to ensure no fines had to be returned – so yeah, the power pole caught doing 120kph was legally doing so in spite of all evidence to the contrary.

So AG’s you can vote out versus entrenched public servants – not sure which is the greater evil :/

Mark - Helsinki
Reply to  Bill
October 31, 2018 4:50 am

Now there is a list of bent countries, including my native country, the racketeering operation called “Ireland”, which is essentially an EU vassal state

Doesn’t matter if their positions are political or not, the people are, and are selected for their connections and or politics anyway

heck, now the British Army are throwing people out for liking the wrong public figures

Richard Patton
Reply to  Bill
October 31, 2018 5:12 pm

Here in Oregon people seldom get to vote on judges. The racket works this way: A judge retires mid-term, the governor appoints a replacement, and since it is ‘temporary’ there is no confirmation or anything like that. Then when elections roll around due to a gentlemen’s agreement the bar association not to run against a sitting judge, the only person on the ballot is the sitting judge. A few years ago someone had the temerity to oppose a State Supreme Court judge and you should have heard the horror expressed that someone would dare to do that. The elites of this state would prefer that the ‘trash’ have no say. The State Supreme Court is so bad that they ruled that live sex acts on stage are covered under the free expression of the state constitution.

Reply to  Dodgy Geezer
October 31, 2018 3:28 am

Appointing judges does not solve the problem, especially if there is no transparency in the process.

Canadian federally-appointed Justices are apparently appointed as rewards for fundraising and other services to the leading political parties. These Justices are remarkably incompetent and corrupted, and have little apparent knowledge of the most basic elements of Rule of Law, such as
– Innocent Until Proven Guilty
– The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
– Human Rights and Gender Neutrality
– The Rights of Children


The following describes the extreme incompetence and corruption of Canadian Federal Courts.

This note is from an eminent Canadian legal scholar – on the Extreme Bias and Incompetence of Canada’s Supreme Court:

“The rot starts at the top! [Canadian Supreme Court] Justice Abella once opined that women are victims in 90-95% of domestic violence incidents. That is the level of ignorance and bias you are up against when you go to court on something like this. This is the court that thinks that it is too much of a hardship to put a woman through a second trial after she hired an undercover cop to put a contract on her husband’s life… R. v. Ryan [2013 SCC 3]. ”


The Supreme Court ruled that it was too much of a hardship to put Mrs. Ryan through a second trial after she hired an undercover RCMP officer to murder her husband. The court ruled that she had no choice but to kill, due to “duress” because she falsely claimed that she was abused. The court also falsely criticized the RCMP for not protecting her. Other than Mrs. Ryan’s false testimony, which was accepted as true without any credible evidence by judges at all three levels of court, no evidence was provided that her husband was violent.

A subsequent major public investigation exonerated the RCMP and showed that Mr. Ryan was not violent. Mrs. Ryan was the violent partner.

Justice Beverly McLachlin, who was Chief Justice for the R. vs. Ryan debacle, has since retired from the SCC and is practising international law.

October 31, 2018 3:47 am


I wonder if that ‘international’ law includes climate science. He seems an appropriate IPCC candidate.

October 31, 2018 4:47 am

Hello HotScot,

I hope you are well and are prepared for this winter – my friends at Weatherbell say it will be very cold in Eastern North America – not sure how that bodes for the UK, but my guess is cold there too.

Former Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin was appointed to Hong Kong’s Highest Court in 2018.

The extremist flaws in R. v. Ryan 2013 SCC 3 were entirely predictable and avoidable:

1. The majority of SCC Justices simply believed the blatant lies of Mrs. Ryan, a sociopath, without checking their veracity. They ignored Rules of Evidence and common sense. Perhaps they accepted the imbecilic meme “Just believe the woman”.

2. Even if Mrs. Ryan was severely abused, which was NOT true, giving people the right to hire assassins to kill their abusive partners is recommending a breakdown in Rule of Law. This too is obviously wrong.

Regarding point 2, consider the scenario of a henpecked man with an abusive wife – will having her “whacked” become the new norm? Or when a man fails to take out the trash, will he be hacked to pieces by his beloved?

BTW, the Silver Bullet Scam is alive and well in the UK as well as Canada. Is it true that your PM Theresa May supports the “Just believe the woman” meme? Without wishing to be too pejorative, that meme is not just false, it is dangerous lunacy.

I am all for gender equality and all that, but do we have to give almost unlimited power to people who are demonstrably incompetent, and possibly batsh!t crazy?

Best, Allan

October 31, 2018 7:52 am


All well here my friend. There are just early indicators of a cold winter following a beautiful, long summer. As usual when the US sneezes we catch a cold so if it’s cold in the NE US, I expect we’ll catch some of it at least.

The gender equality movement and #Metoo craze is alive and kicking in the UK.

A recent example by the most hysterical proponent of liberalism and equality, the BBC (how did you guess) is both prime time slots on Radio 2 (the most popular channel in the country, populated by 60’s/70’s and 80’s refugees like me) the morning show and the drivetime show have been awarded to two second rate female presenters.

The morning show presenter, Chris Evans, whose audiences were around 10 Million every morning is leaving because the BBC was forced to reveal DJ’s salaries, and his was £1.6 Million. His slot will be taken by Zoe Ball.

The drivetime show was reorganised several months ago to include a female DJ, Jo Whiley, to join the established DJ, Simon Mayo. So two highly paid presenters (not in the league of Evans though) to run a single show……this is the BBC’s perverse interpretation of saving licence payer money! The combination was a flop.

Simon Mayo is now leaving the BBC and the Jo Whiley has been reallocated an evening spot. So they wheeled in Sarah Cox to present drivetime.

I anticipate both shows haemorrhaging listeners, a lot of the breakfast show lot moving to Virgin Radio where Evans is going and there are lots of alternatives to the drivetime show.

The important element is the positive discrimination applied here. The BBC used to strive for excellence and presenters were selected on their qualities behind the microphone. Now, females are sent to the front of the queue irrespective of their abilities.

I’m all for gender equality but not at the cost of standards. The fact is there’s more men in the workplace and therefore more competition to excel and a bigger pool to pick from. Women in general don’t have the same desire to succeed as men, whether that’s a bad thing or not is debatable but, it remains a fact of life.

The BBC is without a doubt one of the worst liberal influences in the country. With it’s huge reach across radio and TV they skew the entire political debate in favour of socialism. They are frequently forced to apologise for misleading statements on numerous subjects, not least climate change of which they are fully support the ‘concencus’ but also of their overt, unreasonable hatred of Trump. What they can’t be forced to apologise for, nor be forced to change is their attitude to both, with daily sneering comments and innuendo, tainted reporting and negative connotations. The drip, drip of the leaking tap.

And make no mistake, the effect on the country is huge with many people still believing the BBC to be the worlds foremost bastion of critical journalism, a quality long since abandoned as they now bed down with the hotbed of socialist misinformation, the guardian.

Both are occupied by London luvvies, most of whom believe the streets of London cover the entire country, other than when they are occasionally forced into the protective arms of Countryfile, one of the most popular documentary/education shows on TV, covering the ‘countryside’ life with a typically tame farmer as a co-presenter to the BBC crew. As you might imagine, according to Countryfile, the blame for everything wrong in the countryside is caused by climate change!

And of course, the BBC strings are pulled by our government, despite the denials. Even the question of fitness and obesity are included in almost every show in one way or another. The BBC has been enlisted in the government drive to tackle the issue, but only because it costs the NHS money. The links between the corporation and government is glaringly obvious yet they both deny it exists.

So a long answer to your simple question. Yes, gender equality is a big issue here and it shows no sign of ending with government opposition pledging they will force private businesses to include female representation on their boards. I can’t wait to see the number of female cleaners being awarded surprising promotions if the labour party (socialists as you may have guessed, and this lot particularly pernicious with their links to communism and anti Semitism) are triumphant in the next general election.

If that happens I may well be in touch with you for some house hunting advice in Canada when we retire in 3 years or so!

November 1, 2018 3:50 am

Hello HotScot,

We would be happy to have you in Canada, my friend, but I must caution you that our current Liberal (covert Marxist) Party of Canada is taking us down the same path as the UK, led by you Justin Trudeau, who never held a real job before his “entry-level” position as Prime Minister of Canada.

Most people assume Justin is an imbecile, and there is ample evidence of that, but I wonder if his extreme leftist advisors are deliberately ruining the economy – here are my previous thoughts on that concept:

Here is how modern politics works:

The far-left is winning, especially in the developing world, where over 100 countries are pseudo-Marxist dictatorships, based on their leftist phony rhetoric, but are actually just military dictatorships, run for the ruling elite and their armed thugs – see Zimbabwe and Venezuela… and North Korea, Cuba, the Soviet Union countries and many more..

The left gains political power by promising imbeciles lots of free stuff. Then they destroy the economy, create widespread poverty and live like kings atop a ruined state – because you can’t be kings without lots of peasants.

It is really no different in the developed world. Get elected by lazy greedy imbeciles, destroy the economy with fake green energy and other crazy policies, and live like kings on top of a ruined economy, looking down on all the peasants.

November 1, 2018 4:09 pm

typo correction:
… our current Liberal (covert Marxist) Party of Canada is taking us down the same path as the UK, led by youNG Justin Trudeau, who never held a real job before his “entry-level” position as Prime Minister of Canada.

Robert of Ottawa
Reply to  Dodgy Geezer
October 31, 2018 4:03 am

It’s for the same reason for First Past The Post elections; at leqst you can kick the bums out, which much more difficult with PR. Many here in Canada wish for elected judges as they have now become the defacto government with the Parliament differing to Judicial fiat on a host of issues. They have become above the elected government.

Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
October 31, 2018 4:39 am

They (judges) have become above the elected government.

Canada has the notwithstanding clause. That means that if a judge finds legislation unconstitutional, the government can pass new legislation that invokes the notwithstanding clause. The legislation lasts five years and then lapses or has to be passed again. It’s wonderful protection against activist judges.

There was recently a case in Ontario where an activist judge made a decision that made no sense legally. It really surprised all the experts. The government was about to invoke the notwithstanding clause but an appeal court made that unnecessary. link

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
October 31, 2018 6:24 am

The only real protection that us conservatives have against the socialist hordes is that every 4 or 5 years with a first past the post system, we can vote da bums out.

Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
October 31, 2018 7:03 am

The problem is that we have reached the point where more than 50% of the people receive more from government than they pay in taxes.
The desire of the people to vote for themselves from the public purse is insatiable.

Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
November 1, 2018 4:49 am

The control of the Deep State in Canadian law enforcement is almost complete.

Men are falsely charged with crimes based on the lies of their former female partners, typically sociopathic women who destroy their families for financial extortion and/or revenge.

The Police lodge these charges based on “the “Just believe the lying woman” meme and Crown Prosecutors take these matters to trial, where Provincially-appointed Judges, the last bastion of sanity in the system, often dismiss all charges.

In the meantime, children are separated from their fathers and left in the hands of sociopathic women, who too often do them irreparable harm.

One very decent man I have come to know is facing about ten criminal charges, all based on false allegations by his sociopathic ex-wife and her lawyer. The accused is an accomplished professional gentleman who has done nothing wrong, but he has alienated the Police and the Crown by simply stating the truth to and about them, and has refused to submit to a “Peace Bond”, which he knows will be used against him in the future.

His children have been severely harmed by long separations from their loving father, and are now estranged from their sociopathic mother.

This is the utterly corrupted state of law enforcement in Canada today – the Police and the Crown Prosecutors routinely breach their own Codes of Conduct with impunity, and their actions can be best described as criminal misconduct, worthy of dismissal for cause and prison time.

This corrupted process is destructive to families and especially to children – the question is whether this is a deliberate objective of the socialists to destroy families, or is it primarily the result of corruption for the personal gain of the miscreants.

Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
November 2, 2018 6:30 am

Here is the situation in Calgary – a man who is completely law-abiding and has done nothing wrong is being illegally harassed and intimidated by a corrupted police force and Crown Prosecutor’s office, because he refuses to submit to their lies and threats and speaks out against them. These lying thugs are fortunate that he is a peaceful, mature man.

This will not end well – sooner or later the cops will abuse the wrong man and he will retaliate – then everyone responsible will act like they are dumbfounded by the violence. “For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind…”

We are governed by criminals.

Richard Patton
November 2, 2018 4:33 pm

Prosecutors (D.A.s) can be the most dangerous officials in the government. They can destroy you even if you are innocent and they know you are innocent. Examples: about 20 years ago the county prosecutor in Ellensburg Washington totally destroyed a church and sent many of the members to jail for Child abuse and (believe it or not) Devil worship. The children were intimidated into ‘confessing.’ Then there is the Duke University lacrosse (I think it was lacrosse) fiasco. Supposedly gang rape. The player’s lives were ruined, they are in debt, possibly for the rest of their lives, defending themselves. All because of a false accusation that the DA knew was false, but he went ahead anyway because he was running for re-election and it looked good on his hard on crime résumé. And then don’t get me started about special prosecutors.

Bill Marsh
Reply to  Dodgy Geezer
October 31, 2018 5:53 am

An appointed AG would potentially be the ‘lapdog’ of the person that appointed him and I don’t think they would be any less subject to political agenda than an elected one.

Reply to  Bill Marsh
October 31, 2018 8:07 am

The Attorney General is essentially the topmost law enforcement officer for the state. They are not part of the Judiciary, they belong to the Administrative branch.
The appointment process would at least ostensibly be public. Secretly appointed law enforcement is a VERY BAD IDEA as it would lead to secret police.

We grant arrest and detainment authority to our Law Enforcement members because they have been through some minimal public vetting process and as such have garnered a certain amount of public trust.

A complete and secret circumventing of this tacit authority would erode all public trust in such enforcement by private organizations and bleed overt into public enforcement as well. A brief accounting of the current public trust of legitimate law enforcement in areas where the residents observe biased enforcement is evidence of such erosion.

It’s a short slide from empowering activist environmental enforcement to Religious Police harassing individuals who they feel do not look pious enough.

Reply to  Dodgy Geezer
October 31, 2018 6:15 am

Because we fought wars to not be British and reject tyranny in all it’s forms.
Why can’t Britain be more like the US and have public servants accountable to a public vote? Why can’t AGs hire staff to do the campaigning, oh wait they do.

Dr. Dave
Reply to  Dodgy Geezer
October 31, 2018 6:37 am

“Why can’t the US elect people who are meant to be political, and employ permanent staff for jobs that are meant to be non-political?”

You mean like the “nonpolitical” permanent staff working at the FBI, the Department of Justice, the IRS, and the EPA? Recent history proves these agencies are full of permanent staff that are political

John Endicott
Reply to  Dr. Dave
October 31, 2018 6:50 am

Recent history proves these agencies are full of permanent staff that are political

not only that but unaccountable – a very dangerous combination.

Reply to  Dodgy Geezer
October 31, 2018 7:23 am

Everyone is political.
Those that aren’t elected are part of what is often referred to as “the deep state”.

Reply to  Dodgy Geezer
October 31, 2018 8:00 am

Have you not read articles on “The Deep State” in the US?

Permanent bureaucrats that are as political as can be, can’t fire them and actually work to influence policy to their liking, regardless of who was elected. Meant to be non-political and being non-political are two different things.

Reply to  rbabcock
October 31, 2018 10:56 am


You have just described the EU.

And people wonder why the sane half of the UK voted for Brexit.

Reply to  rbabcock
October 31, 2018 12:19 pm

Unrestricted hire-and-fire in civil service, also known pejoratively as the spoils system, was an effective deterrent to Deep State infection. Hard to form a bureaucratic swamp when the pipes stand to be flushed every few years.

As they’ve done many times since, the so-called progressives weaponized grievance and exploited a tragic event (James Garfield’s assassination) to sidestep the hurdle. The first Civil Service Act might as well have been called the Deep State Enabling Act, fittingly signed by career machine politician Chester “Chet” Arthur.

Reply to  Dodgy Geezer
October 31, 2018 8:56 am

We Americans tend to distrust politicians. The capitol of the US was said to be selected because it was so cold in the winter that Congress could not meet; so hot in the summer that Congress could not meet. That left only four months of the year for Congress to meddle in the affairs of the citizens. At the time, we went further, and made sure salaries were low enough that politicians had to have a real job in order to house and feed their families. Making them do money-raising now accomplishes that same objective.
Most other countries think politicians are somehow inherently good. We think they’re wrong. I can’t think of a more useless parasite.

Mickey Reno
Reply to  commieBob
October 31, 2018 6:13 am

Elect Republicans to all statewide AG positions. Republicans tend to have more respect for the law, more respect for a “level” playing field. Get Democratic activists out of these jobs.

Reply to  commieBob
October 31, 2018 6:29 am

Raising funds. They control the system. literally. The only way to depose of them is through elections. They ignore police misdeeds when it helps them prosecute whom they want. And the police ignore their misdeeds in return.
Don’t believe me look up how many have been released from prison because DNA proved cops and prosecutors had to have lied. Not just proved innocence.

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  commieBob
October 31, 2018 9:45 am


I think you are on the wrong track.
Search, using this phrase:
Bloomberg-Funded Lawyers in DOJ

spalding craft
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo but really in Beijing
November 1, 2018 3:11 pm

People have to know about it first. The fact that we have political ads means that, in the affected states at least, voters will be aware. I would assume most states will have a similar program. Maybe not.

THis brings up another issue, that of billionaires who are unduly influencing U.S. policy through stealth measures as well as out in the open. I can think of several examples of this alarming trend, most of which readers here will be aware of.

spalding craft
Reply to  spalding craft
November 1, 2018 3:15 pm

I was responding to Crispin in Waterloo’s comment: “It may be that the court of public opinion will convict said special AG’s.”

October 31, 2018 12:30 am

Scary stuff, and shades of a possible totalitarian future coming to a country near you. If Hillary would have been elected, I am sure this would have been on the national drawing board right now. Especially for everything related to climate change. It is already de facto in academia and media right now, except we don’t get prosecuted here for it yet by having any dissenting facts or opinion. But the powers that be do and have, all over the world, prosecuted people for much less, for anything they wanted. The founding of America was supposed to put an end to all this. Basic First Amendment. I guess we will all be on trial for our comments here in the future…based upon the future Retroactivity Act.

John MacDonald
October 31, 2018 1:13 am

The five links don’t work on my phone. Please redo.

Leo Smith
Reply to  John MacDonald
October 31, 2018 1:31 am

Please buy an android phone.

Julian Flood
Reply to  Leo Smith
October 31, 2018 2:01 am

Are there other sorts?


George Lawson
Reply to  John MacDonald
October 31, 2018 2:12 am

They don’t work on my computer either.

Reply to  John MacDonald
October 31, 2018 6:37 am

The links don’t change the cursor like links normally do, but if I right-click them & choose open in Firefox, they all work.

David Hood
October 31, 2018 1:27 am


Carl Friis-Hansen
October 31, 2018 1:34 am

Why is it that I come to think about the KGB from the former USSR, when I read this article?

Reply to  Carl Friis-Hansen
October 31, 2018 1:44 am

Because corrupting the legal system is something the USSR did well.
The oligarchs seeking to run America are not doing this to advance America but rather to make themselves richer.

Julian Flood
October 31, 2018 2:02 am

Are there other sorts?


Julian Flood
Reply to  Julian Flood
October 31, 2018 2:05 am

Oops, sorry.

(While I’m here, the GWPF lecture by Richard Lindzen is worth watching.)

Dodgy Geezer
Reply to  Julian Flood
October 31, 2018 2:08 am

A link would help…

Carl Friis-Hansen
Reply to  Julian Flood
October 31, 2018 2:42 am

DuckDuckGo is your friend:

Reply to  Carl Friis-Hansen
October 31, 2018 5:12 am

Carl Friis-Hansen

Brilliant! Thank you.

Uniquely, what Richard Lindzen does, without trivialising the science of the earth’s climate system, is to explain it in layman’s terms.

His explanation of the political exploitation and the bizarre shift of the wealthy elite from capitalism to socialism are also nicely illustrated.

The GWPF however, do have a problem with their recording of these lectures. If an image is projected onto their screen it must be visible to those of us viewing it remotely. The guest lecturer must also be provided the equipment to use the images in their lecture. Richard Lindzen didn’t even have a pointer. This is not unusual.

Carl Friis-Hansen
Reply to  Julian Flood
October 31, 2018 3:14 am

We try again, somehow the actual link did not go through.

DuckDuckGo is your friend:
Titled Professor Richard Lindzen Climate Lecture 8th Oct 2018

John Bills
October 31, 2018 2:38 am

The Russians did it!

October 31, 2018 3:53 am

Re the comment in the article: “this is OUTRAGEOUS!”

If true, this situation is much more than “Outrageous”.

This is the subversion of the Law through bribery – this is serious criminal conduct, the destruction of Rule of Law, the very basis of national prosperity and personal security.

Excerpt from the article:

“Citing to key records from each AG’s office, the exposés lay out the tie-ups between a “Center” funded by New York billionaire activist Michael Bloomberg, and various state AGs across the country. Each AG specifically requested the outside group provide attorney salaries and benefits, as well as other “services that may be available to your offices on individual matters”, including still more attorneys, and public relations advocacy, to “advance progressive…legal positions” on specific issues.

For the word “progressive” above, read “Marxist”. Progressives follow a Marxist agenda, but many are just too stupid to realize it.

In my opinion, the above conduct is treason.

Tom Abbott
October 31, 2018 6:07 am

“If true, this situation is much more than “Outrageous”.

This is the subversion of the Law through bribery – this is serious criminal conduct, the destruction of Rule of Law, the very basis of national prosperity and personal security. ”

That’s exactly what it is. “Justice” For Sale. Buying and using the Power of the State for partisan political purposes.

People ought to go to jail over this.

October 31, 2018 4:19 am

AI judges might be useful, with a real judge having to explain why any decision was changed. Here is an example: AI judge convicts pipeline vandals, because there is no law that allows damage to pipelines, any attempt to reverse the decision exposes overreach.

paul courtney
Reply to  climanrecon
October 31, 2018 10:36 am

climanrecon: But who designs software for the AI Judge? If you choose the wrong Mann, all the AI Judge’s decisions will look like hockey sticks.

John Endicott
Reply to  climanrecon
October 31, 2018 12:37 pm

The problem with an AI Judge is it’s judgements are only as good and as neutral as how it was programmed to be. Seeing the way the big social media tech companies program bias into their algorithms (and then blame it on “errors” in the programs when called out on it. Funny how their errors always lean to one political side) can you trust that such biases wouldn’t be programmed into the AI judges?

Russ Wood
Reply to  John Endicott
November 5, 2018 3:09 am

But remember what happened when (was it Google?) built an AI to converse on social media, and it went full-out right-wing racist in a couple of days? So, of course, the writers scrapped it! But the answer is two-fold: One – open source, so that EVERYTHING that goes into an AI judge is visible. Two – the whole thing has to be a set of logic (which probably would obviate everything else – political law just ain’t logical). And, of course, the pre-requisite is understanding natural language as it is actually said or written. Lawyers make their fees by twisting and straining the words as far as they can go – and I can foresee a particular law function being that of language programmer (or twister).

Dennis Bird
October 31, 2018 5:05 am

I’m getting an irritating javascript popup when I visit this site. Been happening for several days.

Tom S
October 31, 2018 5:54 am

Law enforcement and science will both be perfect when people are perfect. I’m still waiting on good enough.

Joel O'Bryan
October 31, 2018 8:18 am

Paying executive branch prosecutors “off-the-book” (from non-appropriated funds from outside the legislative power of the purse authority), and then having those prosecutors gain access to law enforcement powers and judicial proceedings it most assuredly unconstitutional in all 50 states.

John F. Hultquist
October 31, 2018 9:50 am

This explains what is going on.

Also, see my reply near the top of these WUWT comments.

Buck Wheaton
October 31, 2018 10:05 am

How would the left react should this be cast as money from Monsanto to pay for “special” enforcement of their intellectual property control of farm crop genetics? Or maybe money from Big Oil to make it easier to secure pipe line right of way?

This type of arrangement is nothing but corruption of the role of government. In some ways, it is treasonous. It allows a private interest to have full control of an otherwise legal power of the State. Yet, the left is just fine with it.

In the past the left has pushed itself to the front of the line to complain loudly about “special interest money” corrupting government.

paul courtney
Reply to  Buck Wheaton
October 31, 2018 10:45 am

Buck: Excellent examples of “the shoe on the other foot” that the left never considers. Here’s another- Casino magnate wants to take old lady’s home to build parking garage, gives $ to AG to fund the hiring of his fixer attorney to use State power to get ‘er done. Lefties like Steyer seem to have no clue that they are setting precedent.

Reply to  paul courtney
October 31, 2018 12:51 pm

The gander buying the sauce for the goose, with no consideration of what’s going to be for dinner tommorrow night.

John Endicott
Reply to  Buck Wheaton
October 31, 2018 12:39 pm

In the past the left has pushed itself to the front of the line to complain loudly about “special interest money” corrupting government

they’ve only ever complain about “special interest money” that benefits their opponents, They’ve always been just fine with “special interest money” that benefits themselves.

October 31, 2018 10:22 am

If they can buy out the law enforcement system then certainly they could pay off selected media outlets.

Joel Snider
October 31, 2018 11:07 am

Ahhh, geez – why do I always find ‘Oregon’ in all these scandals?

October 31, 2018 3:01 pm

Virginia? With the AG we have at the moment? No surprise there. 🙁

Gary Pearse
October 31, 2018 4:47 pm

I think CEI should go further and recommend to Trump these Champagne socialist “charities” be deregistered. All the NGOs should have to reapply with a ” business” plan.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights