US Attorney General: ‘We may prosecute climate change deniers’.

Posted: March 10, 2016 by oldbrew in Legal
Tags:

Which climate opinions are illegal?

Which climate opinions are illegal?


James Delingpole finds that there could soon be a crime called ‘climate change denial’ in the US, if authorities so determine. Wasn’t America supposed to be the land of the free?

The US Department of Justice has been considering whether people should be prosecuted for the offense of climate change denial. “This matter has been discussed. We have received information about it and have referred it to the FBI to consider whether or not it meets the criteria for which we could take action on,” said Attorney General Loretta Lynch, responding to a question from green activist Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) at a Senate Judiciary Hearing.

Whitehouse said: “The similarities between the mischief of the tobacco industry pretending that the science of tobacco’s dangers was unsettled and the fossil fuel industry pretending that the science of carbon emissions’ dangers is unsettled has been remarked on widely, particularly by those who study the climate denial apparatus that the fossil fuel industry has erected.” “Under President Clinton, the Department of Justice brought and won a civil RICO action against the tobacco industry for its fraud. Under President Obama, the Department of Justice has done nothing so far about the climate denial scheme [sic].”

Perhaps the kind of RICO action Whitehouse has in mind is similar to the one proposed to President Obama a few months ago by a number of key climate scientists, led by one Jagadish Shukla of George Mason University. However this campaign appears to have gone mysteriously quiet of late. Could it perhaps be that having become embroiled in “the largest science scandal in US history” and now being under investigation for “double-dipping” and the potential misuse of $63 million worth of taxpayer funded grants, Shukla feels somewhat less confident of holding the moral high ground?

Source: US Attorney General: ‘We May Prosecute Climate Change Deniers’ | Breitbart News

Comments
  1. rishrac says:

    If you can’t win the debate, silence them. You have to think if you are a critic of CAGW you could be prosecuted.
    There is a huge difference between tobacco and climate change. Not one prediction from climate change has come about in the time frame that was dependent on the consequences of co2 warming. In contrast, many people were aware of the ill effects of tobacco use.

    It’s a sad day for the US to even consider such action.

  2. erl happ says:

    The Inquisition all over again. Burnings at the stake. Public humiliation. McCarthy ism. Hitler’s persecution of the Jews.

    Oh dear. Don’t these guys read history.

  3. oldbrew says:

    Who wants to be the one to have to define what ‘climate change denial’ is in legal terms?

    Hard to see how that might work, it’s such a nebulous concept.

  4. rishrac says:

    Oldbrew, that won’t help us much when we’re tied to the stake and they light the fires. I can define it for you, anyone who doubts, questions, raises concerns about the methods or solutions, provides conflicting evidence that the IPCC states.

  5. catweazle666 says:

    I hope they do try it.

    It will blow the lid off the whole can of poisonous worms.

    Just imagine getting Mann, Hansen, Schmidt, Karl et al into a proper court being interrogated by a team of well-briefed lawyers permitted to demand full disclosure and with expert witnesses for the defence such as Judy Curry, Steve MacIntyre , Richard Lindzen and Nils-Axel Mörner.

    Awesome!

    I’d pay good money to watch that!

    Shades of the late, much-missed Michael Crichton’s excellent work ‘State of Fear‘.

    Unfortunately, I suspect someone who actually knows what the outcome is likely to be will warn them off.

  6. Paul Vaughan says:

    Certainly one can say “2+2=4” at venues like wuwt & ce and there are commentators who will viciously deny it. But is that a crime? Even if not, it certainly ruins the discussion. No matter what they do, they won’t be able to ensure justice. There’s definitely something weird going on behind the scenes that totally ruins the discussion at some venues. What to do about that? I can’t say I’m sure, but I’m sure it’s corrupt and I’m not sure if the law can help.

  7. Paul Vaughan says:

    Here’s what I’m sure of:

    1. Revenge on innocent people is far more likely than justice. There’s a very good chance that if the law gets involved it will prosecute innocent people while being cheered on by guilty parties. In other words I’m suggesting the law can’t handle this file competently.

    2. So called “science” can’t do anything to settle the climate discussion. (“Science” is in quotation marks because when based on false assumptions about geometry & spatiotemporal aggregation (as per popular climate discussion convention) it’s not science). The discussion should turn to philosophy, culture, religion, and education. Even a millennial-scale education plan might fail. For example, consider a complicated mathematical proof that NO ADMINISTRATOR can understand. Is it then untrue? This is what I mean by “administratively corrupt notion of science”. Whether or not an argument can be framed administratively and understood by (dull) administrators is NOT a logical measure of truth. This is a philosophical issue arising in the climate discussion. It demands far more careful consideration.

    3. There are dark agents policing sun-climate beliefs at certain climate discussion venues. At first this was something I noticed. Later it became a hobby to test theories about agendas. Based on 3 trivial tests I determined with absolute certainty that these groups were ignorant &/or deceptive. If taken to court the crown could allege deception and the defense would have to prove ignorance. If it’s a fair court I’m confident the crown will win the case (but see tail end of B below).

    Here’s where my thinking is going:

    A. The composition of the climate discussion community is logically unworkable. I’m now consulting with members of religious communities, artistic communities, and other cultures to explore on higher levels more diverse perspectives on the steadfastly intransigent corruption in the climate discussion.

    B. I’ve noticed that while political lefties DO frame arguments in terms stereotypically appreciated by political righties, righties do NOT frame arguments in terms stereotypically appealing to lefties. Righties stick to “red meat” “preaching to the choir”, whereas lefties reach out to expand the base by using argumentation methods that appeal to righties. This appears to explain the “lukewarm erosion” of the center, which has left it appearing to be the ethically most corrupt part of the spectrum. Maybe it’s like the game “king of the mountain” and the people playing the game think the goal (politically perhaps) is to appear to control the center (the mountaintop). What I’ve noticed is that these are the people who are LEAST tolerant of expression of truth. These are the people whose “solution” to free speech is VICIOUS harassment (yes, they let you speak, BUT they set up HATEFUL optics to make you APPEAR beaten beyond recognition with baseball bats — like as if THAT’S the aim of free speech!!!) I would advise that any investigation begin with these people, as for SURE they are the ones GOING TO EXTREMES to orchestrate CORRUPT OPTICS. They’re not direct, genuine, & honest; they’re ANYTHING BUT. Do some of them deserve jail time? If they can’t prove ignorance (as opposed to deception — see #3 above), then I would say for sure yes — but I hasten to ask: who’s qualified to be a panel of fair climate judges? No one that I know, so justice in this case (and by extension “climate justice” more generally) doesn’t look feasible.

    Hopefully that’s enough to move thinking outside-the-box.

    Regards

  8. oldbrew says:

    Prosecution can be messy and long-winded. Persecution is probably a better bet for pushers of climate agendas and we’ve seen it happening, and/or attempts at it, already.

  9. PeterMG says:

    This nonsense is just part of every day life in the Banana Republic of America. The US voter via the primary’s are shunning the mainstream and going for the radicle. (some choice) Its is not just climate science where the establishment has completely lost its marbles.

  10. What do you expect the criminal in power to do…

  11. If anyone is interested there’ a “Friday Quiz” on “do you understand the greenhouse effect” on my blog (Scottish sceptic).

    As for those who deny climate changes … Mann might have denied climate change … but that deserves ridicule not the law

  12. Just a simple point. It is very easy to prove that far more people have died from the lack of warmth than from any heat. In the UK alone that figure is around 37,000 extra winter deaths each year. That is an astonishing 1million since Hansen first lied to the Senate.

    Worldwide 15x as many people die from cold and heat. As I said above, people like Mann who tried to “get rid of the medieval warm period” are provably trying to hide known climate change. Likewise with the “hide the decline”.

    What the idiots pushing this nonsense don’t seem to realise is that because they got a free ride from the press and government, they are far more likely to be caught by any such law than the sceptics who have been under intense scrutiny and always come out clean.

    … what’s more no one ever became a sceptic to make money … whereas I don’t know anyone pushing warming who doesn’t have their snouts in the trough.

  13. Sheer political suicide is what the US Democrats are pursuing in this matter. Remember, the whole notion of persecuting skeptics for ‘denying climate change’ is a 2-part deal. Part 1 is that ‘Big Oil & Coal’ supposedly knew CO2 harms the planet just like ‘Big Tobacco’ knew cigarette smoking causes cancer, and part 2 is that both sets of industries paid shill experts to lie. Turned out to be true with ‘Big Tobacco’; turns out that there is NOT A SHRED OF EVIDENCE behind the accusation against ‘Big Oil & Coal’. Instead, the accusation implodes under hard scrutiny no matter which angle you look at it — traceable to a small clique of enviro-activists circa 1996-’97, with part of the accusation’s roots seen in Al Gore’s Senate office circa 1991-’92.

    I’m indebted to James Delingpole for his October piece ( http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/10/14/conspiracy-theorist-sen-sheldon-whitehouses-war-climate-deniers-doomed-fail/ ) pointing to my work on this, which I link straight to here: “Those scientists who want to use RICO to prosecute AGW ‘deniers’ have a big problem” http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/10/those_scientists_who_want_to_use_rico_to_prosecute_agw_deniers_have_a_big_problem.html Plus, don’t even get me started on Senator Whitehouse: ” ‘Skeptic Climate Scientists are Industry-Paid Shills’ (sir, what is your source for that?)” http://gelbspanfiles.com/?p=2842

  14. Paul Vaughan says:

    Does climate really compare with tobacco?

    alleged anthropogenic climate change: supposedly threatens the existence of the world.
    tobacco?? not so much.

    fossil fuels: used for transportation, energy — affects whole economy.
    tobacco? not that I’m aware of.

    Tobacco looks to be minor minor minor league.
    So are orders of magnitude greater persecution demanded by climate?

    Now supposing we tell a dog 1+2+3+5+8=19 and the dog FAILS to acknowledge this as fact. The question is: Should the dog be jailed for denial?

    Just to clarify, I’m not proposing that we jail administraitors and those with administratively corrupt notions of science (they’re a nuisance but that certainly doesn’t warrant jailing), but I DO think we need to rethink the laws around FREEDOM OF SPEECH (specifically the optical work-arounds).

    You can see it SO clearly what’s going on at these AMERICAN climate blogs. They feel a NEED to APPEAR to be upholding free speech so they resort to application of VICIOUS HARASSMENT as a tool to manage OPTICS. If someone dares to state the truth (Sun runs Earth’s climate), out come the baseball bats in a hateful full-force message to all other would-be truth-speakers.

    It goes way too far. The way they do their thought policing is WAY too intense — WAY too extreme. I would suggest that investigators dig deeply into that behavior to discover it’s roots. The type of mind that thinks like that TO SUPPRESS THE TRUTH is devoid of human dignity. It’s downright inhumane.

    I can suggest rethinking laws in that area — i.e. optically engineering the APPEARANCE of free speech but DELIBERATELY targeting those who dare do to state the truth with INHUMANE harassment — aimed at restoring and maintaining civility (& peace & tranquility).

    Blocking or banning someone from a venue is fine, but letting them in with intent to lay a vicious beating on them for their true beliefs — in front of an audience no less — is more than a little sick.

    Prosecutors: If you want to do some real good, go after those people. At least give them cause to think twice about how they operate.

    Our laws aren’t keeping up with what’s right and wrong.

  15. gregole says:

    I certainly don’t know, but it looks to me like typical political grandstanding. All smoke, no fire. Isn’t the FBI busy with Hillary’s indictment?

  16. oldbrew says:

    KRAUTHAMMER: OBAMA COULD BE IMPEACHED IF HE PROSECUTES CLIMATE SKEPTICS
    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/432641/krauthammer-impeachable-if-obama-actually-prosecutes-climate-skeptics

    [Charles Krauthammer, MD is an American Pulitzer Prize-winning syndicated columnist, author, political commentator, and physician. His weekly column is syndicated to more than 400 newspapers worldwide.]

  17. Curious George says:

    Classic proverb: it is easy to find a stick to beat a dog.
    U.S. Attorney General rendition: it is easy to find a dog when you have a stick.

  18. Fanakapan says:

    Its a mark of the inherent stupidity of the over intellectualised socialist, that they ultimately propose that which will destroy their own position🙂

  19. Gary says:

    Senator Whitehouse has a history of using governmental power – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheldon_Whitehouse. He’s an elitist who thinks he knows better than the average citizen. He’s ignorant of science. He belongs to the political party that continues to strangle the State he represents in Congress. That party has been in power since 1937 and crushes all opposition through corruption and doling out of favors.

  20. gallopingcamel says:

    catweazle666 says: March 10, 2016 at 11:39 pm
    “I hope they do try it.”

    You are so right!

    The Global Warming folks are getting desperate. Mother Nature is not cooperating with their theories so now “Free Speech” must be suppressed. Even our leftist “Supreme Court” will understand that violates the First Amendment.

  21. gallopingcamel says:

    oldbrew says: March 11, 2016 at 7:22 pm
    Krauthammer is a very smart guy who writes well but he is still one of the ruling elite’s “Useful Idiots”.

    Hopefully there will at least one presidential candidate on the ballot this November who is not owned by the “Donor Class”.

  22. Richard111 says:

    From the evidence of trusted publications available from the internet, the trace gas, carbon dioxide, aka CO2, is a COOLANT in the atmosphere. I would be happy to discuss that in detail in the high court.

  23. Paul Vaughan says:

    Cartoon idea for Josh:
    muscle-bound baseball slugger with a baseball bat with a sign that says “government-funded blogger”
    a booth that says “FREE SPEECH”
    people are allowed to pop up in the booth and start speaking
    if they dare utter certain things (e.g. sun runs climate), the slugger clobbers their head off
    a delegation of high-ranking chinese politicians could be looking on
    the slugger could chuckle a bit, turn to them and say, “y’all don’t need to fear free speech, you see? hehe”

    optics: with some of the inhumane treatment we’ve clearly seen (vicious harassment, vengeful thought policing, etc.) at american climate blogs, that’s effectively what appears to be going on

    what we’re observing is HATEFUL discrimination against a certain type of belief: LOVE of nature…

    What would happen if people who LOVE NATURE organized a RELIGION around THE TRUTH, which is that the Sun runs Earth’s climate? Would they be afforded protection from persecution? When it comes to climate the sun is not “a” truth, “a” way, & “a” life, but rather the Sun is “the” truth, “the” way, and “the” life. And we all know it. We all believe it. And we all love nature.

    Are we all free to love and worship nature and the Sun in peace & tranquility? Does a religion have to be organized in a certain way in order to afford legal protection? These are just some of the questions now on my mind as I hike through beautiful forests and kayak between the mountains and through the deep inlet islands.

    Maybe just maybe we can get our thinking outside the booth.

    We gotta have some fun with this …

    And quite seriously — & quite honestly — I don’t want to be harassed for my beliefs …including beliefs I base on the following fact: The Sun runs Earth’s climate.

    I also believe someone is paying someone else to viciously harass me for expressing my belief.

    Like I say: We’ve gotta have some fun with this. But you know I’m also serious at the same time that I’m having this fun.

    The thought-policing at some venues has been intense, relentless, and factually wrong. Were I an investigator on the trail, I’d start my explorations there. The behavior has been way too systematic to pass as unorganized. I’d bet there’s treasure to be found by digging there — and I bet the uncovered story could make someone’s career.

    wuwt & ce: What’s so hard about letting people believe the truth?…

  24. Bryan says:

    Is there anyone on the planet that thinks the climate has not changed over the last 4 billion years?

  25. oldbrew says:

    Richard111 says: ‘carbon dioxide, aka CO2, is a COOLANT in the atmosphere’

    Maybe that’s why they put it in fire extinguishers😉

    ‘CO2 fire extinguishers contain pure carbon dioxide which is a clean extinguishant, leaving no residue.’
    http://www.safelincs.co.uk/co2-fire-extinguishers/

    Plant food: The effect of carbon dioxide on net photosynthesis.

  26. Paul Vaughan says:

    Trying to understand why 2+2 is not perceived as equal to 4 in some parts of the world ….

    “[…] In terms of reading, U.S. students ranked in the middle, among the bottom one-third in
    science, and second to last in mathematics […]”
    http://www.virginiareviewofasianstudies.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/1.Baumann-Jade.pdf

    It’s starting to make sense.

  27. oldbrew says:

    PV: who needs education when you’ve got the likes of Gore and di Caprio to feed you your instant climate opinions?

  28. […] h/t; Discussed also at: breitbart.com ; tallbloke.wordpress.com […]

  29. oldbrew says:

    ARE YOU A CLIMATE “DENIER?” THE LEFT WANTS TO SEND YOU TO JAIL FOR DISAGREEING.
    http://americanelephant.wordpress.com/2016/03/13/are-you-a-climate-denier-the-left-wants-to-send-you-to-jail-for-disagreeing/

    Roy Spencer: ‘What’s Next? Prosecuting String Theory Denialists?’
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/03/whats-next-prosecuting-string-theory-denialists/

  30. p.g.sharrow says:

    What is a climate change denier?

    Someone that believes that the climate changes continuously due to natural causes and humans have little to do with it.

    Or that climate changes little, due to natural causes and humans are the cause of major changes.

    I am very Skeptical of any human caused Climate Change.
    I am certain that Climate changes due to variations in Natural conditions.

    Does that make me a DENIER or a BELIEVER in Climate Change?…😉 pg

  31. catweazle666 says:

    “What is a climate change denier?”

    Someone who believes that a phenomenon that has existed since the planet developed an atmosphere around 4,500,000,000 years ago can be stopped in its tracks by increased levels of taxation on fossil fuels?

  32. oldbrew says:

    As I said earlier, persecution is an easier option than prosecution.

    Roger Pielke Jr. writes: ‘So to be clear: I am no longer conducting research or academic writing related to climate, I am not available for talks, and on the climate issue I have no interest in speaking with reporters or giving testimony before Congress.’

    https://theclimatefix.wordpress.com/2015/03/01/a-quick-guide-to-pielke-jr-on-climate/

  33. Paul Vaughan says:

    p.g.sharrow (March 14, 2016 at 6:03 pm) wrote:
    “I am very Skeptical of any human caused Climate Change.”

    Empirically if there’s a human component it’s indistinguishable from 0.

    Theoretically on the other hand the human component is religiously compelling (for believers easily led into an abstract realm by false geometric & spatiotemporal assumptions).

  34. Paul Vaughan says:

    The United States of America is destabilizing world security with its dark climate agenda.
    The roots of the problem are concentrated in Hollywood (fantasy) & Washington (aggression).

    I have absolute confidence that the far east with its superior wisdom knows exactly what series of steps to take to permanently correct this unsustainable problem.

  35. linneamogren says:

    This is where the left always leads when they come to the understanding that their revolution is not taking root. They then turn to fear, intimidation and in the last stages terror. In Sweden its a crime to even suggest certain folks are causing a awful lot of violence. So the ends justify the means. Be it climate change or multiculturalism you will bend to our collective will.

  36. oldbrew says:

    The signs are there that they plan to invent a whole new category of crime i.e. ‘climate crimes’.
    http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2015/10/13/the-courts-the-climate/

  37. oldbrew says:

    ‘This is official harassment, pure and simple. It is intended to stifle free and open debate and inquiry.’
    http://dailysignal.com/2016/03/14/the-left-is-embracing-orwellian-policies-to-go-after-climate-deniers/

  38. Paul Vaughan says:

    There’s plenty of harassment coming from right-leaning figures on this file too.

    I think it’s EXTREME partisans from BOTH ends of the left-right spectrum (or perhaps any spectrum) that most easily slip into harassment. Some of these extremists POSE as center agents, but they’re no such thing!!

    The worst harassment I’ve seen is from the handful of california dark agents put on pedestals at wuwt. I believe at least 2 of them are extreme lefties (posing otherwise). Another one of them may be a free agent mercenary. Another is a slave to the comical opinions of brain-dead political slave-masters.

    But overall I do think the site really represents the left, even though it poses for a right audience. The strategy may be to try to control the perceived opposition by pulling and warping it as far as possible.

    And that strategy has for sure worked to the left’s favor. It has worked very well for them. They’ve pulled that audience a very long way towards the left. And the audience is all-too-willing to just submit, rather curiously & suspiciously….

    I suggest that the site’s primary reason for existing is to deliberately hatefully and viciously assault realistic beliefs about sun-climate relations to support the left’s agenda. Infiltrate and control the opposition strategy, posing as friend.

    The number of people appearing fooled in the audience by the crude thought-policing harassment tactics arouses extremely high levels of suspicion. Normal western people aren’t so easy to herd like submissive sheep… I don’t trust whatever’s going on there with the optics.

    Something must be something other than what it appears to be. I would begin any formal government investigations there. If they don’t begin the investigations there, of course the optics will be that the government LIKES the way that site is viciously beating people into sun-climate submission and pulling them AWAY from realistic beliefs.

    That’s the course I’d bet we’ll observe. They’ll leave wuwt alone because of the excellent, exceptional, tireless work it’s doing in support of the left’s cause. They took a baseball bat to realistic sun-climate beliefs. The left LOVES that …and I certainly won’t be surprised if someday I learn that the left orchestrated all that to vengefully sabotage the opposition — i.e. to control the opposition with undermining infiltration…)))

  39. Paul Vaughan says:

    If that sounds paranoid, come on: does anyone doubt that the levels of passion on the climate file aren’t high enough to drive infiltration and sabotage? People are EXTREMELY passionate about their climate beliefs. Some of them would do ANYTHING to save the world.

    I suggest getting it in perspective folks. I suggest they’ve hijacked and sabotaged. What I see is a bunch of dumb dupes (the audience) who’ve allowed themselves to be submissively coerced.

    I advocate a boycott of the comments section. Sensible people don’t comment there; political agents comment there to paint a picture of submission to false beliefs about the sun’s governing role in terrestrial climate.

    It’s PERFECTLY helpful for the left. I’m SURE the government likes it (more like loves it…)

    Remove the artificial pedestals (the dark agents pose on) and it all crumbles.

  40. linneamogren says:

    @Paul.

    I find it interesting you mostly only pointed to this file as evidence the right are using “intimidation” to silence any opposition. The overwhelming and vociferous cries to crush and subjugate any opposition is the flagship of the international left. Not even close….

  41. Paul Vaughan says:

    Linnea, perhaps I need to clarify:

    It looks to me like left special operatives have been sent on a SUCCESSFUL away mission (infiltration) into right territory to SHUT DOWN sun-climate truth.

    It’s an age-old tactic: Control the opposition.

  42. Paul Vaughan says:

    Sun-climate thought-policing at american climate blogs is dark. It sabotages integrity.

    Remember: The elite will play left against right, right against left, race against race, gender against gender, nation against nation, or whatever it takes to engineer desired change. Western media double standards are easy to spot like when covering religious terrorism targeting China versus that targeting USA. The Chinese media learned a lesson during that episode. They thought western media would sympathize, but their prediction was based on the wrong criteria. They based it on the assumption: west opposes terrorism. What they missed: Elite play divides for advantage …and will (hypocritically) go the other way when it’s advantageous.

  43. Paul Vaughan says:

    To clarify further:
    What I’m provoking at is:

    Why is the sun-climate belief-policing at american climate skeptic blogs (posing as right-wing) so vicious and factually incorrect (it’s based on false geometric and spatiotemporal assumptions FYI)?

    The answer may be that the elite do not want left-right divisions on the climate issue. That may be why the right is being pulled away from sun-climate truth (to sabotage opposition to the climate agenda).

    I’ll dig out some links to provocative material (to help people brainstorm this) when I can find some time (no more available today — paid work calls)…

  44. Paul Vaughan says:

    The international climate skeptic community believes the sun runs climate.

    Why is the sun-climate belief-policing so extremely vicious at american climate venues? And why are their darkest agents ALL located in California??? And why is their narrative based on FALSE geometric & spatiotemporal assumptions???

    Let’s start being more frank and clear about what the problem is and where it’s rooted. Enough’s enough people. Let’s get real on these goons and turn the ****ing tables.

    Cheers

  45. crazy runs deep in this government

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s