Greenland GISP2 Warm Periods. Sourced from and annotated by Joanne Nova.

Puerto Rico Greens Launch a RICO Lawsuit Against Big Oil

Essay by Eric Worrall

Big oil is accused of conspiring to deceive the public into thinking the current warming might not have been caused by Anthropogenic CO2.

Big oil is behind conspiracy to deceive public, first climate racketeering lawsuit says

Lawyer in a civil lawsuit launched by towns in hurricane-hit Puerto Rico describes why it is using laws used to target mob bosses

Nina Lakhani @ninalakhaniTue 20 Dec 2022 20.00 AEDT

The same racketeering legislation used to bring down mob bosses, motorcycle gangs, football executives and international fraudsters is to be tested against oil and coal companies who are accused of conspiring to deceive the public over the climate crisis.

In an ambitious move, an attempt will be made to hold the fossil fuel industry accountable for “decades of deception” in a lawsuit being brought by communities in Puerto Rico that were devastated by Hurricane Maria in 2017.

“Puerto Rico is one of the most affected places by climate change in the world. It is so precariously positioned – they get hit on all fronts with hurricanes, storm surge, heat, coral bleaching – it’s the perfect place for this climate litigation,” said Melissa Sims, senior counsel for the plaintiffs’ law firm Milberg.

Now, the first-ever climate change Rico case alleges that international oil and coal companies, their trade associations, and a network of paid thinktanks, scientists and other operatives conspired to deceive the public – specifically residents of Puerto Rico – about the direct link between their greenhouse gas-emitting products and climate change.

Read more:

Where do accusations of big oil conspiracy come from?

In 1982, Exxon produced an internal summary document of other people’s research. Since the document became public knowledge, climate activists have held up the internal memo as evidence they “concealed” their knowledge of climate change.

But the document contains rather large caveats, and like I said, was based on public domain research.

Judge for yourself.

Page 1Full PDF Document

Consider the “warning” at the bottom of Page 4, continuing to the top of Page 5:

“There is currently no unambiguous evidence that the earth is warming. If the earth is on a warming trend, we’re not likely to detect it before 1995. This is about the earliest projection of when the temperature might rise the 0.5° needed to get beyond the range of normal temperature fluctuations. On the other hand, if climate modelling uncertainties have exaggerated the temperature rise, it is possible that a carbon dioxide induced “greenhouse effect” may not be detected until 2020 at the earliest”.

Imagine you were an Exxon executive in 1982 reading a statement like that. Would you have a) hit the panic button and explained to shareholders you were going to close the company, or b) regarded Glaser 1982 as an interesting scientific document, of little importance to current operations?

At the bottom of Page 5, Glaser 1982 provides advice on the appropriate response;

Overall, the current outlook suggests potentially serious climate problems are not likely to occur until the late 21st century, or perhaps beyond at projected energy demand rates. This should provide time to remove uncertainties regarding the overall carbon cycle and the contribution of fossil fuel combustion as well as the roles of the oceans as a reservoir for both heat and carbon dioxide. It should also allow time to better define the effect of carbon dioxide and other infrared absorbing gases on surface climate. Making significant changes in energy consumption patterns now to deal with this potential problem amid all the scientific uncertainties would be premature in view of the severe impact such moves could have on the world’s economies and societies.

The Guardian article references a 1998 “conspiracy” to deceive the public, but doesn’t provide details of exactly which document they are talking about. It might be one of the papers published by Naomi Oreskes, a big list of advertisements published by oil companies which cast doubt on claims CO2 drives global warming.

But do these documents and advertisements really represent a conspiracy to commit fraud? Or are they just a constitutionally protected expression of free speech?

Given the current warm period is similar to the Medieval Warm Period, Roman Warm Period and Minoan Warming, and the current warming started around 1850, well before anthropogenic CO2 could have had a significant influence, there is plenty of room to cast doubt on claims that the current warm period was caused by anthropogenic CO2. For what it is worth, I believe anthropogenic CO2 likely does have a warming effect, and probably contributed to the current warm period – but that is not the same as believing the current warm period was entirely caused by CO2.

Even if you believe that CO2 is the main driver of modern warming, do you really believe it should be a crime to disagree?

Another glaring absurdity in the Puerto Rican lawsuit is they still want big oil to continue supplying their evil product. As far as I can tell, there is no demand that big oil cut off the supply of petroleum products to Puerto Rico to protect the global climate.

Such lawsuits deserve our derision, not our respect.

5 35 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
December 21, 2022 10:03 am

Question: How long would the lights stay on and cars continue to run in Puerto Rico, if big oil stopped selling their products there?

Bryan A
Reply to  ScienceABC123
December 21, 2022 10:17 am


Bryan A
Reply to  ScienceABC123
December 21, 2022 10:18 am

Welcome fellow Americans, welcome to Puerto “RICO”

Reply to  Bryan A
December 21, 2022 5:26 pm

Reply to  ScienceABC123
December 21, 2022 10:18 am

ScienceABC123, sorry for answering a question with a question: But what is the time-period equivalent of diddly-squat?


Reply to  Bob Tisdale
December 22, 2022 9:32 am

I think it’s about a tenth of a Planck time, Bob.

Last edited 3 months ago by Tony_G
Bryan A
Reply to  ScienceABC123
December 21, 2022 11:42 am

Realistically no longer than a month since virtually all their energy sources are imported

Bryan A
Reply to  ScienceABC123
December 21, 2022 3:29 pm

Someone should tell the Government in Puerto Rico that they should simply stop importing FF to the island. They certainly have no domestic sources so start living without it and show the rest of the world how it’s done

December 21, 2022 10:10 am

Another stupid lawsuit to put up with are these people so mentally damaged by propaganda.

There is no climate change for Puerto Rico and no climate crisis either.

List of Puerto Rico hurricanes

They can stop LYING since they have nothing to present!

Bryan A
Reply to  Sunsettommy
December 21, 2022 10:24 am

Perhaps the Big Green scammers need to start facing RICO Lawsuits for their Collusion

Russell Cook
Reply to  Bryan A
December 21, 2022 6:13 pm

Stay tuned at my GelbspanFiles blog the the dissection of this one. Compared to the other 26 current “ExxonKnew”-style U.S. lawsuits, this latest entry into “the show” is so over-the-top with its political accusations, I need to split the dissection into two pieces. I’ll examine the RICO angle of it in Part 2.

Watch this space: “Municipalities of Puerto Rico v. Exxon Mobil, Part 1″

Last edited 3 months ago by Russell Cook
Reply to  Russell Cook
December 22, 2022 9:34 am

I’ll examine the RICO angle of it in Part 2.

I probably read that wrong, but it got me wondering if there might be a RICO angle to the green mob, especially this lawfare part?

Russell Cook
Reply to  Tony_G
December 22, 2022 7:43 pm

Did you click on my “RICO angle” link in my prior comment? It goes to an archived version of Shub Niggurath’s hugely important 2015 blog post on where a major effort of “Rico-teering” is found in the CAGW issue, namely Oreskes et al.’s idiotic 2012 La Jolla CA workshop that appears to be the bedrock these current #ExxonKnew lawsuits are built on. Never lose sight of a core hallmark of far-leftists, the psychological projection of what they say, do, and think onto our side as accusations of what we are. When Big Green accuses Big Oil of racketeering, well ……..

Tom Halla
December 21, 2022 10:12 am

1982 was still in the “the next ice age is coming right soon now” phase, so I suppose Exxon disagreeing with the consensus was signs of guilty knowledge?
Or is it that no one knew much then, and still do not know?

Reply to  Tom Halla
December 21, 2022 2:22 pm

To be accurate, it is termination of the modern interglacial. And that process began about 1000 years ago.

We are now witnessing the visible changes. Increasing winter advection of heat from warmer oceans in the NH arriving over land as the temperature falls below freezing. The formation of the snow at 240K reduces the heat loss from the land so is warming. Winter temperature on land in the NH is where “global warming” is most noticeable

Greenland plateau is a location experiencing the greatest impact of “global warming”. NASA anomaly data attached verifies this – Greenland is on fire! A 2000m thick block of ice is on fire if you believe the BS that is being peddled.

USA is heading for a solid dose of “global warming” in the next few days. And I am not being sarcastic. Snow is created at about -33C. It is cold when it falls and is slow to melt so keep the place cold. But when it formed, it was actually warming the surface by reducing the rate of heat loss from the surface.

Screen Shot 2022-12-22 at 7.59.49 am.png
December 21, 2022 10:13 am

Dump Puerto Rico before the demrats make it a state.

December 21, 2022 10:29 am

Should farmers be held responsible for obesity? They knew obesity causes or exacerbates other health issues, and 100% of obese people eat food, but still they persisted in selling their product.

Should cotton farmers be held responsible for fashion disasters?


Vlad the Impaler
Reply to  MJB
December 21, 2022 11:04 am

… and ‘wardrobe malfunctions’?

Reply to  MJB
December 21, 2022 11:34 am

Match and lighter manufactures for arsonists?

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  MJB
December 21, 2022 1:41 pm

At least those claims have some kind of foundation; you DO have to EAT in order to become “obese.”


“Scientists say so” is NOT “evidence.”

Models are NOT “evidence.”

Pet hypotheses are NOT “evidence.”

Joseph Zorzin
December 21, 2022 11:03 am

“conspiring to deceive the public over the climate crisis”

It’s called freedom of speech! The discussion is not closed. The science is not settled.

Bryan A
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
December 21, 2022 11:43 am

And it ain’t a crisis only a crysis

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
December 21, 2022 1:42 pm

The science is more like non-existent.

December 21, 2022 11:07 am

Given the need to mitigate damages in tort litigation they will need to immediately outlaw fossil fuel use on the island.

Bryan A
Reply to  terry
December 21, 2022 11:44 am

Need to bring in some tankers and start pumping OUT

Mike Maguire
December 21, 2022 11:16 am

Want to bring justice to Big OIl.
Present them with a Nobel Prize in several categories as partners in the fossil fuel industry for being responsible for much of the technological advancements in our world.

For greatly increasing life expectancy and greatly enhancing the quality of life. Tripling world food production with synthetic fertilizer and beneficial atmospheric fertilizer, CO2 to reduce food insecurity.
Massively greening up the planet and creating a booming biosphere for most creatures enjoying the current climate optimum…..which is still not as warm as the higher latitudes were during the Holocene climate optimum, between 9,000 to 5,000 years ago when there was less Arctic ice than right now.
Lets be crystal clear about this. We owe almost everything we have today to fossil fuels and this is diabolical fraud and a blatant violation of ethics for self serving political agenda!

Bruce Cobb
December 21, 2022 11:31 am

They should SLAPP them silly.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
December 21, 2022 3:04 pm

I would cut off all supplies of oil products

December 21, 2022 11:37 am

Interesting to note the estimated uncertainty in 1982 was 1.5 – 4.5 degC. Nothing much changed there despite 40 years of CliSci research.

Exxon is full of very bright people and it shows in the succinct writing and clarity of thought. Some of their back of the envelope calculations are quite interesting too concerning past CO2 concentration assumptions and when a signal might be detected. Draws attention to the fact that if more than expected of the warming is natural then the GW signal may not even be detected.

December 21, 2022 11:51 am

Straight back at them – RICO lawsuit for conspiring to deceive the public that any current warming is caused by anthropogenic CO2, that CO2 is causing climate change and that CO2 should be reduced

Test these idiots in the Courts – they do not have settled science on their side, quite the opposite

The current legal case in the Netherlands that Clintel are trying to get involved with, is of similar importance to destroy the alarmist narratives once and for all – you cannot debate with cultists, so smash them

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Energywise
December 21, 2022 1:06 pm

“Straight back at them – RICO lawsuit for conspiring to deceive the public that any current warming is caused by anthropogenic CO2, that CO2 is causing climate change and that CO2 should be reduced”


Where is the evidence that CO2 is anything other than a benign gas, essential to life on Earth?

The truth is the people filing this lawsuit don’t have the evidence and neither does Exxon. Exxon had assumptions and speculations, just like everyone else, but they have never had any evidence connecting CO2 to any climate change on Earth, nor has anyone else.

The people filing this lawsuit are the ones perpetrating a fraud on the public by claiming that CO2 does things for which they have no evidence. The Human-caused Climate Change Hoaxers are filing the lawsuit. That’s part of the hoax.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
December 21, 2022 1:38 pm

The problem is who would fund the counter lawsuit?
Unless a big law practice funded it pro bono there is no chance of that happening.

Rud Istvan
December 21, 2022 12:12 pm

Lawsuit is a waste of time and money and will go nowhere. Civil RICO does not apply to the ‘facts’ of the case. Presumably the lawyers are just taking duped Puerto Rican city money.

December 21, 2022 12:17 pm

Is there not a day without nonsense any more?

December 21, 2022 12:28 pm

Who is the big fat billionaire responsible for financing this ? Or is it big fat Lawyers just conspiring to generate more income for themselves.? How can you tell these days?

December 21, 2022 12:32 pm

Spain’s revenge for the Spanish-American War. Kipling warned us.

Matt Kiro
December 21, 2022 12:34 pm

Would all the wind turbines and solar panels survive all these hurricanes? Do they want to cover their land with ecological destroying panels? Destroy all the beautiful views with 200m tall bird choppers? Please shut down all your ports to ships that use fuel and oil. Have fun living in the 18th Century.

December 21, 2022 12:35 pm

Sounds like the “leaders” of those communities don’t want fossil fuels. The oil companies should respect their wishes and stop deliveries to them. Or offer to continue to sell to them but with a RICO surcharge to cover their costs for defending themselves.

Reply to  stinkerp
December 21, 2022 1:14 pm

XX.X) the recipient of product (oil, natural gas, or any derivatives) acknowledges that the recipient understands & takes responsibility for any adverse conditions that may result from the use or misuse of the product and will indemnify the provider against all potential claims (reasonable or otherwise) of harm as a result of the use of the product. The recipient hereby becomes an equal partner in defending all actions against the provider relating to adverse claims.

Reply to  stinkerp
December 22, 2022 9:38 am

The oil companies should respect their wishes and stop deliveries to them.

If only they would. Even as dense as the activists are, it wouldn’t take more than a few instances of that to put a stop to it. The “normals” would make sure of it.

December 21, 2022 12:51 pm

Puerto Rico should check out pilot studies like the Maldives and Sri Lanka

Coeur de Lion
December 21, 2022 12:56 pm

Whose money is being spent on this lawsuit? The impoverished PR taxpayer?

December 21, 2022 1:10 pm

For what it is worth, I believe anthropogenic CO2 likely does have a warming effect, and probably contributed to the current warm period 

How can you believe such trite nonsense.

Look at the attached NASA image. How is this “Global Warming”.

Look at the Greenland plateau – mostly red. It is on fire. Here you have a 2000m thick ice block on fire.

This is worth shouting to get through thick heads who have been duped by the CO2 nonsense:


North America will see a lot of that “global warming” this coming weekend. Increasing snowfall is the major cause of “global warming”. It follows from the oceans of the Northern Hemisphere reaching ever higher surface temperature in September due to rising solar intensity in June then that heat advecting to land as the land cools down. And this process occurred four times in the last 500k years in the same phase of Earth’s orbit precession cycle.

Screen Shot 2022-12-22 at 7.59.49 am.png
Last edited 3 months ago by RickWill
Reply to  RickWill
December 21, 2022 1:43 pm

This news story highlights the most significant factor in current “Global Warming”

All that snow was formed at an average radiating temperature of 240K. That is colder than the surface so less heat loss to space than of the atmosphere had no water vapour. Snow is a sign of warming and higher winter temperatures. It may not seem like it when the snow is falling at -33C (240K) and then remaining as ice on the ground despite the efforts of feeble sunshine to melt it. But the data shows most warming on land is occurring in winter in freezing conditions.

This is the information that needs to be sunk into thick sculls who have been duped into thinking CO2 has any impact on Earth’s energy balance.

Reply to  RickWill
December 21, 2022 1:47 pm

Well I don’t know how you work that out. On the WUWT sea ice page today the Greenland Portal page is only blue and the trend is that the total mass is increasing at well over the average rate.

Or have I misunderstood your point?

Reply to  Oldseadog
December 21, 2022 2:07 pm

Or have I misunderstood your point?


Greenland has warmed up 10C in January over the last 70 years. From almost -30C to just under -20C now. A huge increase in temperature due to increasing snowfall.

Greenland has gained 170mm in elevation in the past decade and is accumulating permanent ice extent. The entire surface area will have permanent ice cover by the end of the century. This is the result of warming water surrounding the island and increasing heat advection in the form of latent heat from snow formation.

Reply to  RickWill
December 21, 2022 4:44 pm

Snow records will be a feature of weather reporting for the next 8,000 years:

Those living north of 40N should get used to seeing more snow.

Attached image shows “global warming” in a single image. Note the sign of the temperatures. This is why the NH is warming up mostly in winter.

Screen Shot 2022-12-22 at 11.39.25 am.png
Last edited 3 months ago by RickWill
December 21, 2022 1:20 pm

I refuse to give one inch on any claim that CO2 from burning fossil fuels has any provable impact on our Climate. It still remains a failed hypothesis. This position is the only logical position else much like the rest of the culture war, you let the other side win by changing terms and changing the rules. There is not a single repeatable and reliable proof for the claim that CO2 causes global warming.

Reply to  davetherealist
December 21, 2022 1:46 pm

I am waiting for the law suits against those so-called scientists and organisations hyping this nonsense about CO2 altering Earth’s energy balance.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  davetherealist
December 21, 2022 1:47 pm

Agreed, 100%.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  davetherealist
December 22, 2022 3:57 am

“I refuse to give one inch on any claim that CO2 from burning fossil fuels has any provable impact on our Climate. It still remains a failed hypothesis.”


son of mulder
December 21, 2022 1:27 pm

Good to see that The Greenhouse Effect Technical Review is dated April 1st 1982. I like a company with a sense of humour.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  son of mulder
December 21, 2022 1:48 pm

Lol hadn’t noticed that!

December 21, 2022 2:01 pm

OK, cut off these assh*les’ electricity, water, sewage and vehicle fuel. No access to public transportation, no bicycles, no pharmaceuticals, foods out of season or imported period, absolutely nothing “derived” from “petroleum”. Period. Nothing. And not for 6 months blahblahblah, permanently. It is the world they are forcing upon innocent people against their will, make them live in it first, then people can choose.

December 21, 2022 2:26 pm

In theory, a rational judge would simply throw the case out, but wit the Democrats, nothing is rational.

December 21, 2022 3:22 pm

Now the greenies are really throwing stuff against the wall to see what will stick. Everything else has slid off or bounced. Desperation is being the driver behind this latest lawfare scam by the greenies. AGW has been debunked, time for the greenies to double down on the BS.

December 22, 2022 1:16 am

I still cannot figure out how a court of law can possibly make, or be expected to make, judgements on scientific questions.

How does that make sense? Should not any court dismiss any such action simply because of that?

Andy Espersen.

Last edited 3 months ago by andersjoan
Tom Abbott
Reply to  andersjoan
December 22, 2022 4:03 am

Well, a judge in the UK ruled that Al Gore’s climate alarmist movie was not fit to show British school children. He made his judgement based on science. In Al Gore’s case it was based on bad science.

Part of a judge’s job is to be able to distinguish between evidence and assumptions, assertions, and speculations.

Since there is no evidence showing CO2 is causing any climate changes, an unbiased judge should rule that way.

Unfortunately, today many of our judges put political considerations ahead of the law, and rule accordingly.

December 22, 2022 8:21 am

Unfortunately, “Big oil” will probably end up caving like they always do, instead of fighting this and actually airing out the evidence.

Gras Albert
December 22, 2022 9:05 am

Question: How long before the first RICO lawsuit is brought against the Green Energy industry for conspiring to misslead the public regarding the cost and reliability of the product they promote?

There was a 5 day cold spell in the UK in December 2022 which saw day time temperatures never rise above 0°C (32°F) over much of the country, during that time the name plate 25GW wind energy capacity actually averaged around 1GW or 2.5% of demand! At 2022 prices, $55bn spent in order to pay exorbitant charges to buy electricity from France, Holland, Belgium & Norway to keep the lights on!

December 22, 2022 6:42 pm

Nina Lakhani @ninalakhaniTue 20 Dec 2022 20.00 AEDT

The same racketeering legislation used to bring down mob bosses, motorcycle gangs, football executives and international fraudsters”

1) “Mob Bosses”? Seriously Nina, which Oil/NG/Coal bosses act like mob bosses?
Then look around the climate alarmists where literally dozens of activists do act like mob bosses. Especially when they attack people they believe do not believe as they do.

2) “Motorcycle gangs”? I assume you mean when a motor cycle gang terrify ordinary people and small businesses?
Again, look at your own climate alarmist fools. How many have gathered together to harass somebody with which they disagree .

3) “International fraudsters”
Just how did fossil fuel executives defraud anyone? Especially when they published those letters you are waving around.
Again, those actions are not evident in any of the fossil fuel industries, but they’re certainly evident in climate alarmist actions.

In each case, you are projecting the sins of climate alarmists against those who are innocent of the actions you describe.

Hopefully, one of the lawyers will be smart enough to use examples right from the climate alarmist actions.

The evidence against climate alarmists is abundant enough that sooner rather than later, some ambitious District Attorney will pursue Racketeering charges against climate alarmists.

Including aiding and abetting charges against compliant media people who never bother to dig into details, instead they prefer to just echo the worst from climate alarmists and pretend it is news.

Last edited 3 months ago by ATheoK
old cocky
Reply to  ATheoK
December 22, 2022 7:39 pm

2) “Motorcycle gangs”? I assume you mean when a motor cycle gang terrify ordinary people and small businesses?

That’s so “The Wild One”.

A lot of “motorcycle” gangs are involved in illicit drug production and distribution. Very few of the members even know how to ride a motorcycle. The term is now shorthand for illegal drug production and distribution.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights