Environmentalism

Are State Attorneys General Attacking Climate Change Critics Engaging in a Conspiracy?

Glenn Reynolds, the law professor behind Instapundit.com thinks so.

|

Glenn Reynolds, who teaches law at the University of Tennessee and runs Instapundit.com, suggests in USA Today that the subpoeana aimed at the Competitive Enterprise Institute related to climate change may be evidence of an illegal conspiracy among state-level attorneys general:

Federal law  makes it a felony "for two or more persons to agree together to injure, threaten, or intimidate a person in any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the Unites States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same)."

I wonder if U.S. Virgin Islands Attorney General Claude Walker, or California Attorney General Kamala Harris, or New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman have read this federal statute. Because what they're doing looks like a concerted scheme to restrict the First Amendment free speech rights of people they don't agree with. They should look up 18 U.S.C. Sec. 241, I am sure they each have it somewhere in their offices.

Here's what's happened so far. First, Schneiderman and reportedly Harris sought to investigate Exxon in part for making donations to groups and funding research by individuals who think "climate change" is either a hoax, or not a problem to the extent that people like Harris and Schneiderman say it is.

This investigation, which smacks of Wisconsin's discredited Putin-style legal assault on conservative groups and their contributors, was denounced by the Competitive Enterprise Institute's Hans Bader as unconstitutional….

Here's what happened next: After Bader's critique, Walker, the U.S. Virgin Islands attorney general, subpoenaed the Competitive Enterprise Institute's donor lists. The purpose of this subpoena is, it seems quite clear, to punish CEI by making people less willing to donate.

Read the full article.

NEXT: Here's More Evidence the Trump Movement Is Backlash Against Political Correctness

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I wonder, as part of the current lawsuit, if CEI or Exxon will subpoena the AGs to determine whether they are engaged in a criminal conspiracy. At some point, you hope the private sector will start, what’s the phrase? “Punching back twice as hard”. A laydown 1A case would be a good place to start.

  2. Wasn’t there a bunch of snow across much of the northeast just this weekend?

    1. THIS COMMENT BROUGHT TO YOU BY BIG OIL.

      1. THIS COMMENT BROUGHT TO YOU BY CAPS LOCK.

        1. I APPROVE OF THIS MESSAGE!

    2. When it’s unseasonably warm it’s climate change, when it’s unseasonably cold it’s just weather. Really isn’t that hard to keep straight.

      1. And any strong storm, warm or cold, is a climate event.

        1. So is a storm-free season.

      2. You’re behind the times. Let me get you up to speed. When it’s unseasonably warm it’s climate change, when it’s unseasonably cool it’s climate change.

        1. Unseasonably warm weather is above normal, while unseasonably cold weather is above average.

          1. above average below average

            1. “Above average” colditude is acceptable.

      3. See, when it’s unusually cold, that’s global warming causing more extreme weather events.

      4. “Climate is what we expect – weather is what we get.”

      5. No, goddammit, it’s ‘global climate disruption.’ You wrongthinkers.

    3. Are you deliberately trying to sound as stupid as the people who think that big hurricanes prove global warming?

      1. Yes, I believe he was.

        Has a way to go, though – needs more hysteria, and some ad hominem and overuse of CAPS LOCK would not hurt, either.

      2. Whew, those pearls almost made it to the ground. Good catch!

        1. No kidding. Somebody get the dainty little flower a fainting couch.

          1. Oh, right. Only dainty flowers are capable of noticing blind idiocy. It’s like you can see right into my soul.

    4. You forgot the HURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

  3. Is this headline a violation of Betteridge’s Law?

    1. Uhm, no? Or else yes. One of those, I’m almost sure.

  4. “U.S. Virginia Islands”

    Uhh… Virginia has islands??

    1. Chincoteague.

      1. The weirdest accent in America comes from Chincoteague.

        1. Never been to Ocracoke, have yeh.

          1. Hoi toiders

      2. I prefer the island right next to Chincoteague – Assateague.

        1. To be fair Assateague has the better beaches.

        2. I was so sure you were going to say, “Gookateague”

        3. I prefer Assawoman Bay.

      3. More dialect than accent in the case of Chincoteague, Ocracoke and particularly Tangier (Island, Virginia). Those places were very isolated until modern times. Tangier Island English is basically the Elizabethan English that was spoken by the original settlers. Shakespeare’s English. Those dialects started to die after WW2 when everyone had TV or Radio and the kids grew up fluent in both dialect and contemporary English.

        1. Tangier Island English is basically the Elizabethan English that was spoken by the original settlers. Shakespeare’s English.

          my mom did her dissertation on that.

          (t-minus X for mom-jokes)

          1. I feel bad that I can’t come up with any Shakespearean mom-jokes. All those years of trying to look down my English teacher’s blouse, wasted!

            1. Wouldn’t you just write the joke in sonnet form?

              1. How did I do thy mom? Let us count the ways:

            2. “Alas, your poor mother, I knew her well….”

              1. Historic Examples of Maternal Insults

                In the Bible, King Joram is greeted by the rebel Jehu with a hostile expression concerning Joram’s mother:

                When Joram saw Jehu, he said, “Is it peace, Jehu?”

                And he answered, “What peace, so long as the harlotries of your mother Jezebel and her witchcrafts are so many?”[4]

                William Shakespeare used such a device in Act I Scene 1 of Timon of Athens, implying that a character’s mother is a “bitch”:

                Painter: “Y’are a dog.”

                Apemantus: “Thy mother’s of my generation. What’s she, if I be a dog?”

                Also in Act IV, Scene II of Titus Andronicus, Aaron taunts his lover’s sons:

                Demetrius: “Villain, what hast thou done?”

                Aaron: “That which thou canst not undo.”
                Chiron: “Thou hast undone our mother.”
                Aaron: “Villain, I have done thy mother.”

            3. I knew I could count on you guys.

              *wipes manly tear*

          2. Cool beans, Gilmore.

        2. I was watching some kind of science documentary, and this guy who had grown up as a Tejano rancher got made fun of when he visited Spain because his vocabulary was from the 1500’s. Fascinating.

          1. …and google up Mongrel Nation Brown Cow video. Grad student studying Old English (Anglo Saxon) figures out that Old English and modern day Frisian are basically the same language. So he goes to Holland, finds a Frisian farmer and starts jabbering at him in Old English. The farmer understands him perfectly and asks him how he came to speak Frisian. “I’m not speaking Frisian, I’m speaking Old English.”

    2. “prescribed” where “proscribed” is an even worse sin.

      1. Its one of the few single-letter typos that both clears the spell-checker and reverses the meaning.

        See, also, “now” and “not”.

  5. A side-complaint.

    Federal law makes it a felony “for two or more persons to agree together to injure, threaten, or intimidate a person in any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the Unites States

    My rights are not granted by the Constitution or laws.

    1. I do not believe, in context, that “secured” is synonymous with “granted”.

    2. I take it back. I guess secured to him is not the same as granted.

      1. I also have a HUGE problem with government agencies throwing around the term “privileges”, i.e. “driving is a privilege, not a right”

        Fuck you. Low-IQ, non-elected, non-accountable government types don’t tell me my “privileges”. If I want to do it, and I don’t harm others in the process, then it’s my right.

      2. “Secured” seems like the right word to use there.

    3. by who then, Jebus?

      1. Me.

        By the fact that I understand what a right is, I can claim it and, most importantly, I harm no one else in exercising it.

      2. Yes, if “Jebus” is the same thing as him who the Declaration of Independence described as “their Creator” (where “they” = “all men”).

        1. Jefferson, of course, would have denied that “Jebus” was the Creator he was talking about. More orthodox Christians would have had a different view, as they would identify said “Jebus” as “the Word” “by whom all things were made.”

    4. “I believe all Americans are born with certain inalienable rights. As a child of God, I believe my rights are not derived from the Constitution. My rights are not denied by any majority. My rights are because I exist. They were given to me and each of my fellow citizens by our creator, and they represent the essence of human dignity.” – Senator Joe Biden, during Robert Bork’s confirmation hearings.

  6. Wait, are you suggesting that intimidating people who are trying to exercise their rights in a way the state does not approve of is NOT a state attorney general’s job?!

  7. There is a conspiracy. Behold the Climate Accountability Institute.

    They held a workshop and published a report:

    And finally, the group sought to identify the most promising and mutually reinforcing intellectual, legal, and/or public strategies for moving forward. We are pleased to share the outcome of these preliminary workshop discussions. Among the many points captured in this report, we want to highlight the following:
    ? A key breakthrough in the public and legal case for tobacco control came when internal documents came to light showing the tobacco industry had knowingly misled the public. Similar documents may well exist in the vaults of the fossil fuel industry and their trade associations and front groups, and there are many possible approaches to
    unearthing them.

    The damning passage starts on page 7.

    Check out page 34 for the list of participants. Some interesting names there.

    1. Didn’t a bunch of emails prove the exact same thing about the climate idiots a few years ago?

      Oh that’s right, that was just a smear campaign by the damn Koch brothers to discredit the IPCC or something.

      1. Ah yes! Climategate. I have many happy memories of that event.

        5. Several scientists raised the above objections to Dr Mann, either in papers they published or face to face in seminars or via direct emails. Rather than responding to them, Dr Mann engaged in scientific misconduct, namely:
        a) Providing misleading information as to his methods and raw data
        b) Attempting to have authors and editors of papers that raised objections fired from journals or, if they were academics, from their teaching posts
        c) Lying to third parties about his actions or the actions of people he was engaged in disputes with.

        6.Dr Mann was assisted in this misconduct actively by senior members of the CRU (the organization whose mail server is the source of the emails), and the knowledge of the chairman of the IPCC, an organization that is supposed to be a transparent, non-activist advisor to national governments.

        12. An inspector general investigating the deletions concluded that these officers willfully and knowingly violated the FOIA, but that having evaded detection for more than six months, the statute of limitations had run out on the crime making it unprocecutable.

        1. 13. Simultaneously the scientists conspired with officials in the BBC to suffuse climate change alarmism into the BBC product. This conspiracy went as far as having BBC reporters prep scientists at the CRU how to maximize the impact of their interviews on news-magazine shows.

          14. The Scientists (sic – it’s hell working without an editor) who presented a united front that equated anyone who questioned the Mann reconstruction or the CRU database as being on the par with Holocaust Deniers in their emails to each other admitted discomfort, confusion and doubt with their pronouncements in private.

          In the set of essays I authored, it is one of my favorites

        2. An inspector general investigating the deletions concluded that these officers willfully and knowingly violated the FOIA, but that having evaded detection for more than six months, the statute of limitations had run out on the crime making it unprosecutable.

          Which is weird, because the running of a statute of limitations is usually suspended or “tolled” if you can show the other side intentionally deceived you into allowing the statute to run.

          Methinks the IG was desperately searching for a pretext NOT to prosecute.

  8. I get that humor is a big part of the dialogue on this site [were it not for that reading some of these stories would be a lot more difficult], but seriously, if such a thing were allowed to pass muster would it not serve as a precedent for greater government overreach? Anyone who is opposed to the “epidemic” notion of gun violence requiring State control could be prosecuted; how about those opposed to ACA or other social programs and initiatives on which a particular administration wants to hang its hat?I can foresee these being justified as “salient” issues that warrant such actions as they are so “important” to our society.

    As I say, the Constitution is just an archival piece of paper if no one aggressively defends it.

    1. Gun control based on statistical malpractice worries us, yes. The challenge is to find ideas that worry the groups pushing the AGs that are stifling speech. Ideas such as.. science has shown that fetuses are viable after 20 months, therefore it is murder to perform an abortion from that point. After another decade of medical developments, fetuses reach viability at 15 months, therefore the murder charge now applies from that point. Hey, don’t blame us, it’s science! Rinse/repeat.

      1. ^weeks/months. you get the point.

        1. Well, “months” is definitely accurate.

        2. I thought that was a bit of a harsh remedy for the possible beginning of the Terrible Twos…

    2. … if such a thing were allowed to pass muster would it not serve as a precedent for greater government overreach?

      In a word, yes. Why else do you think they’re doing it? And why else do you think they’ll get away with it? We’re so fucked at this point it’s not even funny anymore.

      1. And thus the wisdom of the Founders is apparent.

        The 2nd secures the 1st.

  9. “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion.””

    Editorial Board for the NYT aside.

  10. Doesn’t apply to government actions. Waste of time.

  11. If these government officials have such contempt for others’ constitutional rights, who might they target next for “unacceptable” speech?

    First they came for the think-tanks, and i cared not, for i was not part of the Kochtopus.

    1. You aren’t? Man, you are missing out on some sweet bennies!

      *swills Napoleon brandy and scarfs down caviar*

  12. Don’t AGs enjoy total immunity?

    1. Nope.

      A judge has sentenced disgraced prosecutor Mike Nifong to one day in jail for lying to a judge while pursuing the Duke lacrosse rape case.

      Nifong was held in criminal contempt of court Friday for lying to a judge when pursuing rape charges against three falsely accused Duke University lacrosse players.

      Superior Court Judge W. Osmond Smith III immediately moved to consider a punishment for Nifong, who has already been stripped of his law license and has resigned from office. He faces as many as 30 days in jail and a fine as high as $500.

      Reading his decision from the bench minutes after the conclusion of two days of testimony, Smith said Nifong “willfully made false statements” to the court in September when he insisted he had given defense attorneys all results from a critical DNA test.

      He was punished with a whole day in jail!!!!

      1. That’s more than Lois Lerner got.

    2. There’s always limits. Typically, you have immunity for what falls within the scope of your duties. I don’t think violating the BOR is technically one of the duties of a prosecutor.

      Regardless, the whole “process is the punishment” thing can work both ways. Subpoena the AGs, put them under oath, and sweat them about why they are doing this. Even if you don’t get a smoking gun, you’ll get good publicity and inflict pain on the AGs.

      The discovery could also get into their email and correspondence. That’s where you’ll find ill-advised statements that would make them look really, really bad.

      Even if you ultimately lose on appeal, you’d still win. Why not open another front in the litigation?

      1. The AGs are delusional. They sincerely believe that the scientific consensus is that the world is warming dangerously due to antrhopogenic CO2 emissions.

        The fact that for the past 20 years, actual observations have been falsifying the theory is completely obscured to them because all they read are propaganda put out by the watermelon cult.

        So they really believe that they will find docs saying “global warming is real but fighting it will cut our profits”. They don’t care about criminal litigation. They want a damning set of papers to publish that the public will buy into.

        What’s pathetic is that if the science were on their side, they wouldn’t need these PR exercises. The science is not on their side, no matter how stridently they claim it is and how viciously they go after scientists who publicly contradict their apocalyptic claims.

        1. The documents are out there. That’s what prompted the investigation. This is what Exxon management was told in 1977:
          “In the first place, there is general scientific agreement that the most likely manner in which mankind is influencing the global climate is through carbon dioxide release from the burning of fossil fuels”
          By promoting research which contradicted what they knew to be a risk factor to the business, they were hiding relevant information from their stockholders in violation of securities laws.

          1. I encourage everyone who has a couple of hours to spare to go and read the “damning” documents that Happy is refering to.

            Happy, you should read them too. Because otherwise your handle will be associated on this site with the reputation “he repeats easily rebutted propaganda and can be safely ignored”.

            1. I did some reading. This was indeed interesting. Typos due to OCR scanning of old documents. Stay where they talk about scientific consensus. Why were Exxon researchers part of the conspiracy?

              I would like to sunnarize the findings of our resea rch in climate modeling and place our results in the context of the existing body of knowledge of the CO2 greenhouse effect.
              h Dear AI:
              Although the lncrease of atmosPheric CO2 is well docu- nented. it has not yet resulted in a measurable change in the
              earthis clirnate. The concerns surrounding the possible effects of increased CO, have been based on the predictions of models which simulate Ehe earthrs climate. These nodels vary widely in the level of detail in which clirnate processes are treated and in the approxinations used to describe the complexities of these processes. Consequently the quantitative predictions derived
              f rorn the various nodels show considerable variation. However, over the past several years a clear scientific consensus has energed regarding the exPected glimatic effects of increased atmoipheric Co1. The consensus- is that a doubling of atnos- pheric CO, frofi its pre-industrial revolution value qoulil result

              1. Damn. Cut off. Read the rest here

                http://cdn.exxonmobil.com/~/me…..s-1982.pdf

          2. By promoting research which contradicted what they knew to be a risk factor to the business, they were hiding relevant information from their stockholders in violation of securities laws.

            I’m pretty sure you understand what sorts of disclosures are required under securities laws even less than you understand what “general scientific agreement” meant in 1977

            1. The regulations don’t say general scientific agreement, it says risk factors. They identified risk factors to the company, and did not disclose them. Then, through the CEO and other channels, they publicized research that contradicted what they said internally. Like the tobacco companies did about the dangers of smoking. Telling management one thing and the increasing public another is securities fraud.

              1. You have no fucking idea what you’re talking about.

                Climate change isn’t a “risk factor” to Exxon Business. Regulation related to it is. All E&P firms disclose significant regulatory risk.

                1. Read the fucking papers. It’s not me saying it, it’s Exxon.

                  1. You don’t understand what you’re reading, and you completely don’t understand what constitutes a material risk for an oil company.

                    What Exxon said more than 30 years ago is completely meaningless to any investigation being conducted at the moment re: ‘failures to disclose’

                    As already noted (below) the AGs are more likely to look at Exxons own current internal modeling of financial impact of ‘potential future regulatory environments’…. not some bullshit assessment of climate-impact from decades in the past.

                    The fact you’re harping about something like that is just a reflection of how shallow/dense you are.

                2. Besides, this research was being done before there was any talk of regulation.

                  1. Is this jackasses retarded cousin?

            2. you do realize that a person can believe “X” while still looking into “Y” in order to verify, confirm or dispute. there is nothing wrong with that in fact its called science.

              1. The consensus report on Exxon’s website agreed with scientific consensus of a range of 3+/-1.5?. That is what their researchers believed. It’s on their website.

                They told the public otherwise. That is called fraud. It’s what sink the tobacco companies.

                1. They told the public otherwise.

                  You have no citation for this claim. You have only cited the research summary.

                2. No. They said the GCM’s predicted 3+/-1.5? per doubling of CO2. They said it was uncertain how accurate the GCM’s were.

                  The observed transient sensitivity is 1.3?, with long term feedbacks that are negative (meaning that the amount of warming stabilizes lower than the transient feedback.

                  1) Stating that models predict one thing and believing something else is likely is not fraud.

                  2) The models then were overstating warming by about 100%.

                  Even if they were seeking to defraud investors, by peddling a rosy story they didn’t believe (which they were not), it turns out that the rosy story actually matched reality.

                  So, basically, you are left with a made up conspiracy peddled by a doomsday cult desperate to rope more members by distracting the public from the apocalypse’s failure to arrive on schedule.

                  1. Same source. There are estimates. They do not match what was publicized as a result of Exxon funding CEI.

                    Mr. A. M. Natk i n -2-
                    August 25, 1982
                    required for doubling of atmosPheric CO, depends on future world consumption of fossil fue1s. current piojections indicate that doubling will occur sonetime in the latter half of the 2lst centuryl The models predict that co2-induced climate changes should be observable well before doub1ing. It is generally believed that the first unambiguous CO2-induced temPerature
                    increase wiIl not be observable until Eround the year 2000.
                    It should be ernphasized that the consensus prediction of global warming is not unaninous. Several scientists have takln positions that openly guestion the vaLidity of the pre- dictions of the nodels, and a few have proposed mechanisms which could mitigate a CO2 warming. One of the most serious of these proposals has been fiade by Professor Reginald Newe11-of.MIT. ire*if f noted that geoJ-ogical evidence points to a relative con- stancy of the tenp;ratu;e of the equatorial waters over hundreds of miilions of yelrs. This constancy is remarkable in view of

                    1. It should be ernphasized that the consensus prediction of global warming is not unaninous.

                      yet you seem to think they should be disclosing this to investors somehow?

                      jesus you’re fucking dense.

                    2. They do not match what was publicized as a result of Exxon funding CEI.

                      Now you have shifted the goalposts. I want to see a statement from a principal of Exxon Mobil, now or past, made in official capacity, that directly contradicts the cited research summary.

                3. Exxon is no more obligated to share their opinion on the rate of future temperature change of the planet than fucking Hawaiian Tropic is.

                  Because slight temperate changes of the planet over hundreds of years have zero fucking near term impact on the price of oil or the share prices of the companies involved in producing it.

                  Government regulations of these firms do, however. And boilerplate disclosures noting high-degrees of exposure to regulatory risk by all E&P firms cover this ‘risk factor’.

                  Pretending that Exxon is supposed to be updating investors on the reality of ‘climate change’ or not is fucking moronic. they’re not in the business of being a scientific journal, no matter what they may have at one point been researching internally.

                  1. Why were they spending millions of dollars researching something that has no effects?

                    1. Rhetorical questions don’t give your prior arguments a fucking leg to stand on.

                    2. Why were they spending millions of dollars researching something that has no effects?

                      as already noted = interest in climate science is primarily from the POV of how it might lead to future regulatory changes… which is already a risk-factor which is provided ample disclosure.

                      lacking any specific pending regulatory scheme (or changes to existing ones), there’s little requirement to ever go beyond the general boilerplate notes pointing out that the E&P market is highly sensitive to regulatory risk or the impact of changing oil prices.

                      i really don’t think anything new has been learned since it was pointed out that you have no fucking idea what you’re talking about.

                    3. Never surrender!

                  2. I have long suspected Hawaiian Tropic of funding a global warming device to boost sales.

          3. “This is what Exxon management was told in 1977”

            They were “told” something forty years ago???? And you think this is relevant today?

            If what they were told was so concrete then why there has been such a pressing need for “climate change” research over the intervening four decades?

            1. Because we needed to spend billions to make the models underperform reality even more. Progress!

            2. If what they were told was so concrete then why there has been such a pressing need for “climate change” research over the intervening four decades?

              The libel Happy is peddling is utterly self refuting if given two minutes thought. I don’t know with whom he should be angrier – the people who peddled such a insultingly obvious line of bullshit to him or himself for falling for it.

            3. Nobody said it was Concrete. However, it was identified as a risk factor.

              1. However, it was identified as a risk factor.

                Nothing in the cited documents identifies a “risk factor” for Exxon Mobil or its investors.

          4. 1977 huh? What happened in the intervening forty years? Was Exxon’s advice to their stockholders correct or incorrect? Are any of those execs still living?

            Is there a statute of limitations on something like this?

            tarran is correct above: If these fucknuts had science on their side they wouldn’t have to engage in these two-bit dictator tactics.

      2. Why not open another front in the litigation?

        Something about throwing good money after bad, I think.

    3. Hate speech isn’t free speech. All speech that doesn’t fit progressive ideology is hate speech. Therefore, the racist hate speech mongers at CEI don’t deserve constitutional protections reserved for tolerant, peaceful progressives. It says so right in the 1st Amendment.

      1. This was not supposed to be in response to sarc. Fail.

        1. fail speech is not free speech, either.

          1. What if it is hate fail speech?!

      2. The constitution protects political speech across the entire range of beliefs, from democratic socialism all the way to international communism. We should have a healthy and open debate between the radical right-wing “communism in one country” crowd, and the radical leftist “international revolution” crowd.

        1. Da, comrade.

      3. Hate speech isn’t free speech.

        People keep saying that as if repeating it enough will make it true. Of course, it most certainly is free speech. And is still officially recognized as such in the US at least.

    4. Shouldn’t it be AsG?

  13. “This all takes place in the context of an unprecedented meeting by 20 state attorneys general aimed, environmental news site EcoWatch reports, at targeting entities that have “stymied attempts to combat global warming.”

    But will prosecute 20 state attorneys general? Certainly no one in the Clinton or Sanders Administration.

    They couldn’t even get Lois Lerner prosecuted–not even after she was found in contempt.

    1. Hence the desperate need to

      Vote Woodchipper Party 2016!

  14. So a year or so ago, I was listening to Thom Hartmann (I can’t figure out if the stupid is an act or genuine), and he had an interview with a guy leading a consortium of athletes concerned that global warming would cause the end of snow sports. Hartmann was sympathetic, supportive, and agreed that this was a major issue.

    Ten minutes later, he interviewed a guy about how winters were going to be harsher because of the polar vortex. Hartmann was sympathetic, supportive, and agreed that this was a major issue.

    1. I hate people who shorten Thomas to “Thom”, instead of “Tom”. It just seems smarmy to me, somehow.

      1. edit: “hate” is a needlessly strong word. I should say, “dislike”.

        1. In his case, I grant you permission to hate. My other favorite Thom-ism: “When methane breaks up in the atmosphere, it creates six molecules of CO2!”

          1. “When methane breaks up in the atmosphere, it creates six molecules of CO2!”

            Wtf? That makes no sense…Oooooooh. Ok.

          2. I think arctic ice loss is caused by the increase in polar bear populations. Since they are black, they are decreasing the albedo and causing climatastrophes. The solution presents itself.

          3. “When methane breaks up in the atmosphere, it creates six molecules of CO2!”

            *facepalm* So, 1 CH4 breaks down (spontaneously) in the atmosphere into 6 CO2. OK… I bet he “fucking loves science,” doesn’t he?

          4. That’s a pretty neat trick with one carbon atom.

      2. It’s the opposite of Jonathans not shortening to John. Just put the “h” in there like a civilized person.

        1. +1 Jon Snow.

        2. Seriously. I’ve got a good friend who does that, and I used to berate him for it mercilessly.

          And, get this: he’s a Jew. Coincidence? I think not!

          1. “Jew” as in “Christ-killer” or “Jew” as in “Chinese guy named Jew”?

            1. Christ-killer. But he’s Reform, so it’s more like manslaughter.

              You should also buy his book.

        3. Jonathans not shortening to John

          Are there people who do shorten it to “John”? It’s a completely different name. Though Jonathans who go by “Johnny” usually seem to add the “h”.

          1. Thom and Tom are both nicknames for Thomas. And much like getting Jack from John no further rhyme or reason is necessary.

            1. Yeah, I don’t really care at all how people want to spell or shorten their names.

        4. It’s the opposite of Jonathans not shortening to John. Just put the “h” in there like a civilized person.

          What Zeb said. Those are 2 different names. “John” has no long-form. Jonathan is shortened to “Jon”

      3. Blame Thom McAn

    2. Being “sympathetic, supportive, and agree(ing) that (whatever your guest thinks) is/was a major issue” is sort of what most journalists do as a default.

  15. I hate cold weather and snow, and am entirely in favor of anything that will reduce it.

    1. Watch out, waffles is gonna beat you to death with a pair of skis.

      1. Yeah well I’ve had bad experiences in the colder parts of the world.

    2. I hate cold weather and snow

      40 below keeps out the riff-raff.

    3. Winter sucks without cold and snow. I suppose it’s probably alright in Texas or wherever you are.

      1. Temperatures under 70f suck, as far as I’m concerned. If I have to wear a jacket, it’s too cold for my taste.

        1. I decided many years ago to always do everything I can to keep the childlike joy and excitement regarding snow. And I’ve done pretty well. Some of the happiest moments of my life are spent half buried in piles of snow. The down side is that when we get winters like this one it’s just dreary and boring. Lower heating bills are good, though.

        2. It’s a good thing you don’t work where I do. I’ve got my hat and jacket on because they still haven’t fixed the damn heating unit that died right when it got all cold again.

      2. *Comes in from checking the garden, kicks off boots*

        Hey everyone, I have a couple dozen tomatoes on my plants. The first round will be fried green tomatoes and then in a week or two from now fresh, vine ripened tomatoes for hamburgers, salads, and just sliced and spiced with steak and egg breakfasts. Yum.

        1. I forgot to add that I am in a short sleeve tee…

        2. Yeah, that sounds nice. Still solidly in mud season here.

  16. You do realize that it is not the first amendment activities being investigated, but securities fraud for internally identifying critical business risk factors, but misleading their shareholders about them, right? That’s why it is Exxon being targeted and now, because we have evidence that the company viewed global warming as a significant risk factor, but said otherwise to their shareholders (owners).

    1. No we don’t “realize” it because that is a falsehood being peddled by your superstitious cult’s leaders.

      You should run along; grownups are talking.

    2. Except for the fact that you’re retarded.

      Those “risk factors” are all theoretical and not a single model has been accurate. Therefore it’s hardly responsible for them to tell their potential shareholders that AGW is real, calculable and that they are a contributing factor to it.

      If they said it was real, calculable and that they were a contributing factor, any possible investor could sue them for fraud.

      1. Their internal documents showed that they believed it to be a significant risk factor. That should have been disclosed.

        1. Says the guy who has never actually read the documents in question and can only regurgitate huffpo talking points. Oh, and how about Hansen’s multiple violations of the Hatch Act?

        2. You don’t seem to understand either the laws related to risk disclosure in the slightest.

          Never mind the claim that some passing reference from decades ago is supposed to constitute a specific-risk to investors *today*

    3. I don’t think people working for a company having diverse personal opinions is the same thing as the company itself taking an official stance. This is typical deceptive muddying of the water tactics by this loathsome administration.

      Under that rationale any single individual expressing an opinion that conflicts with their company’s official line would cause that company to be fined. Anyone playing devil’s advocate in a company strategy meeting would be breaking the law.

      1. http://insideclimatenews.org/s…..ments/1982 Exxon Primer on CO2 Greenhouse Effect.pdf

        It was official company reports. This is what their researchers believed at the time. Read the two page summary, the words aren’t that big.

        1. I suggest people read the source documents rather than the dishonest summary your cult’s leaders put out. I linked to it above.

          You should read it too. Because you are wasting your time carrying water for people who are lying to you. And by carrying their water you are actually helping them hurt you and your descendants.

        2. If your link worked I might be able to tell if you are referring to some document numbered 1982 or if the stupidity actually goes back to that date.

    4. securities fraud for internally identifying critical business risk factors, but misleading their shareholders about them, right

      Suuuure it is.

      Lets take a gander at some of the big defense companies, and what they say about foreign policy, the likelihood of war or how a change in administration can affect their bottom line.

      I mean, I can’t imagine they don’t publish a full and frank evaluation of these fundamental and rather more pressing risks on a regular basis. Anything else would be securities fraud, right?

    5. And you realize that the article is talking about subpoenas issued to the Competitive Enterprise Institute following the latter’s criticism of the AGs’ efforts to investigate Exxon’s donations to various think tanks and researchers, right? Which is to say that not only is it indeed a first amendment issue but it isn’t even primarily about Exxon.

      I find it’s best to hold off on commenting until one has RTFA, but to each his own.

      1. And you realize that the article is talking about subpoenas issued to the Competitive Enterprise Institute following the latter’s criticism of the AGs’ efforts to investigate Exxon’s donations to various think tanks and researchers, right?

        That would require one to not only read, but comprehend the article. Which would require being able to understand English.

    6. “That’s why it is Exxon being targeted and now, because we have evidence that the company viewed global warming as a significant risk factor, but said otherwise to their shareholders (owners).”

      You’re right if you’re saying that we need to deregulate the securities industry.

      1. Never mind whether everyone in the company agrees with everyone else. Internally, if the company (some supposed monolithic entity) believes that global warming itself doesn’t threaten their profits but overzealous regulation in reaction to it might, then that justifies what exactly–treating them like “Big Tobacco”?

        The possibilities for government takeovers are practically unlimited using this logic. Is that the goal, here?

        1. if the company (some supposed monolithic entity) believes that global warming itself doesn’t threaten their profits but overzealous regulation in reaction to it might

          This is actually closer to the claims being made by the prosecutors

          we mentioned this in a previous Ron Bailey thread

          [the government claims are] not really about their misleading investors about the “science” of climate change.

          The argument the government is making is about “misleading investors about the likelihood of painful Government regulations using Climate Change as an excuse”

          There are constant stress-tests being made by firms in any industry on how various kinds of discussed regulations *might* affect them.

          AG’s could argue that Exxon management had made internal assumptions for the future of the firm (e.g. in a discount rate on their own assumed growth) that included far-stricter future regulatory impact than what they were sharing with investors. There doesn’t even have to be any single specific regulatory move pending, but rather just a ‘tightening up’ of things like Fuel Efficiency standards, clean air standards, etc. over time… which the firm can/does take into account in their own financial planning.

          of course happy-dipshit doesn’t understand any of this.

          1. “There are constant stress-tests being made by firms in any industry on how various kinds of discussed regulations *might* affect them.”

            In my development projects, I put out a prospectus for our investors when we’re raising equity. We’re typically projecting things out three years or more. I make market predictions on lease rates, sale prices, interest rates, etc. using current market data. It can take me 18 months between the time I buy the land and when I can get plans approved. In the meantime, my consultants could find endangered species, Indian artifacts, previously unknown faults, etc. And that’s not even taking the price of asphalt, steel, and concrete 18 months out into consideration.

            A lot can and does change in 18 months. I rerun my projections given new live market information at least every week! If the lease vs. sale analysis changes or any one of dozens of other things, so do my projections.

            1. There are all sorts of gray areas about what I think is going to happen by the time we go to market. I run numbers based on what I think is going to happen, and I run based on what I don’t think is going to happen, too. In business school, if you’re not sure on the likelihood of something, they teach you to go with a standard deviation, but I report to my investors what I think is the worst case scenario–you always want to do better than your projections. But if I were to ignore the possibility of something happening–because I thought it was unlikely–and didn’t bother to have a contingency plan in place in case the worst thing happened despite my well documented expectations 18 prior, I’d be guilty of gross incompetence.

              Yeah, I’ve run all kinds of scenarios that I don’t think are likely to happen. Anybody who finds that unusual or untoward has no business making decisions that might impact businesses or the economy.

        2. The possibilities for government takeovers are practically unlimited using this logic. Is that the goal, here?

          I’m pretty sure that’s exactly the end game.

          1. If we’ve learned anything from modern science, it’s that everything we do negatively impacts someone else in some way. We just couldn’t track and measure the relationships before. If we were only allowed to do things that didn’t negatively impact anyone else, we wouldn’t be allowed to do anything.

            John Stuart Mill is dangerous because he came so close to getting it right. “Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else”, he wrote. But every time I exhale, I send more CO2 into the atmosphere, and, for all I know, may be harming others.

            I’m not here for the benefit of others. Properly, “Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which [violates no one’s rights].” The things I say about Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama may be harmful to them–it may even injure them in some way–but so long as I’m not violating their rights, I should be free to harm their reputations and power with my speech. Growing wheat on my own property for my own use may be harmful to wheat farmers, but I should be free to injure them in that way.

            If government takeovers are justified because what some company is doing is harmful to someone else then there is no government takeover that can’t be justified.

            1. Very well put, Ken. Bravo.

    7. securities fraud for internally identifying critical business risk factors, but misleading their shareholders about them

      That’s not securities fraud.

      ‘Failures to disclose’ are not by definition ‘misleading’ disclosures. The mention of general exposure to regulatory risk is generally sufficient to cover an E&P oil firm unless there is knowledge of *specific pending regulations* they fail to not…. something no one has actually pointed to last i checked.

  17. This is just another turd dropped on America by Obama. This has his name written all over it. If you were wondering what he and Lynch cooked up in their meeting to discuss prosecuting ‘deniers’ the mystery is over.

    He was never anything but banana republic tin-pot material and at no time in the past was that not obvious. This shit is straight out of the Commie playbook. Fuck everyone who voted for him.

    1. Actually, the author of this excrescence is one Naomi Oreskes, a professor at Harvard University. She is fucking delusional.

      She has a lot of pull with the global warming cultists that are involved in Democratic politics, particularly among Elizabeth Warren’s crowd.

      1. So she’s preying on retards?

        1. Hey, its Harvard Law. Its the business model they teach their grads in a nutshell. No surprise one of the profs has taken it up as her own personal business model.

      2. I assure you it is no coincidence that that meeting took place. This just makes me think that those two shitbirds aren’t smart enough to come up with the tactic on their own, but I will gladly pay you a dollar if Lynch didn’t make some phone calls to get this ball rolling.

        1. It’s the same thing they did with the tobacco industry!

          It started with all the attorneys general initiating lawsuits against the tobacco industry. Then it turned into the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement.

          Under the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, Obama subjected the tobacco industry to FDA regulation–which is onerous.

          And the tobacco industry eventually lost its First Amendment rights to advertise, was forced to finance denunciations of their own products, were forced to print outrageously large warnings on their own packaging, etc.

          They want to do the same thing to the oil industry. They want to regulate oil production like it’s tobacco. And they’re going about it the same way. It starts with a bunch of attorneys general getting together and suing.

          1. Unless it is a conspiracy with a lot of parties (which it could well be), I don’t see it working like the tobacco thing. As much as I don’t like the whole tobacco settlement thing, there was at least lots of pretty incontrovertible evidence that tobacco is really bad for you and that the companies tried to downplay that for a long time. Many thousands of people died from smoking related illness.

            In the case of climate change/global warming even if you assume that the science is pretty good, it’s still speculative. Disaster hasn’t happened yet and any honest scientist will tell you that we can’t say with anything close to certainty that it definitely will, or how it will affect the business of oil companies.

            1. Well, as long as they had good intentions, that’s OK.

              1. Are you suggesting that I was implying that?

            2. Zeb, read the document I linked to from the Climate Change Accountability Institute.

              It lays this all out, including the rationale. They are hoping for documents to use for propaganda purposes. Basically, if they can claim “evil oil companies are conspiring to hurt you” they can motivate people to support political action intended to produce energy poverty.

              So long as the enemy is a natural process that hasn’t caused problems yet, people won’t be motivated to support political action. They need a villain against whom they band the general public.

              The point isn’t to bring criminal charges. The point is to troll through documents. They say it explicitly:

              One of the most important lessons to emerge from the history of tobacco litigation is the value of bringing internal industry documents to light. Roberta Walburn, a key litigator in the pathbreaking 1994 case State of Minnesota and Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota v. Philip Morris et al. [C1-94-8565], explained that her legal team, with strong backing from Minnesota Attorney General Hubert “Skip” Humphrey, made it a goal from the start of the lawsuit to use the process of legal discovery to gain access to Philip Morris’s internal documents and make them part of the public domain.

              1. The argument practically writes itself.

                The oil industry needs to be forced to finance the adoption of alternative energy sources like solar. How else can they make up for all the damage they’ve done to the environment, children with breathing problems, etc. with their lies?

                Why isn’t the EPA already regulating the oil companies like the FDA regulates tobacco?

                1. Sorry, I was looking at it from the perspective of someone who is interested in being honest and straightforward rather than political advocacy.

              2. “…motivate people to support political action intended to produce energy poverty.”

                Why people can’t see that and that it is unadulterated evil is beyond me. Do they really have no idea what such a world would look like, what a hell on earth it would be to live in?

                In spite of the watermelon’s best efforts I am still paying less than 2 bucks per gallon for gas.

              3. They are hoping for documents to use for propaganda purposes. Basically, if they can claim “evil oil companies are conspiring to hurt you” they can motivate people to support political action intended to produce energy poverty.

                And make no mistake, they’ll find something – even if they have to twist things around, take a sentence or two from one out of hundreds of documents out of context, whatever – that they can use to do just that.

                Shit, it’s probably better from a propaganda perspective to find just a couple of sentences to twist, contort, and take out of context. That’s way better for getting the twittertards worked up than a long, boring document.

                “‘Cuz reading iz teh hardz and stuff.”

          2. They want to regulate oil production like it’s tobacco.

            That means I have some truly derptastic “truth” commercials to look forward to. Gee, I can’t fucking wait. I think I’ll just go ahead and paint the walls with my brain the first time I see one of those:

            “OMGZ, like, people who own gasoline powered cars cats will die from cancer and junk!!11!!!!!!1 GAS POWERED CARZ = NO CATS = NO CAT VIDEOZ!!1!!11!!!!!!!” *puts gun to head, pulls trigger*

  18. If I was looking around for statements, or omissions, that might be misleading to investors re: the risks faced by a business, I bet the green energy complex would be a rich hunting ground.

    How much do they tell their investors they are dependent on subsidies and tax breaks and special deals with the state? Do they discuss, fully, the risks that their investors run should state policy change? Do they discuss how they are protecting against those risks by lobbying and cronying?

    No? Then aren’t the committing securities fraud?

    1. Or special exemptions from the endangered species act.

    2. Much hay was made previously about this issue. If *all* risk has to be disclosed, then how does Apple say anything about encryption without a big ‘If the FBI doesn’t try to ass-rape us again.’ $15/hr. min. wage has got to be a big risk to a lot of corporations. The US Gov’t has to be one of, if not THE, largest generator of risk out there for an overwhelming majority of major corporations.

      I’d love to see this come back to bite these AG and judicial activists in the ass, but I think there’s a decent chance it won’t.

  19. Federal law makes it a felony “for two or more persons to agree together to injure, threaten, or intimidate a person in any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the Unites States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same).”

    I had to explain to a colleague today why a phrase like this is possessive, but couldn’t think of the terminology for it. Is there a word or phrase defining this sort of clause?

    1. A parenthetical?

      Honestly, it looks redundant to me.

      the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the Unites States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same).

      I’m not sure what it adds.

      1. I was finally able to google it. It’s a gerund. This is the problem with having grown up the son of a pretty fierce English teacher, but never having taken the time to learn the mechanics of English… in general, I know what’s correct but I can never explain why. The poor woman looked at me like I’m dumb and insisted that it doesn’t look right, and I really had nothing to gainsay her other than insisting that it is right.

        1. Yes, gerunds are nouns, so the possessive is appropriate.

  20. Wow, it’s even worse than we thought:

    http://www.livescience.com/543…..-axis.html

    1. An 8000 mile diameter ball of iron and heavier metals has a very thin scum of lighter material floating on the outside of it being less than .0025 the thickness of this ball of heavy metal with a much thinner layer of even lighter ice on top of that and that is what makes the earth wobble…not the 5.972 x 10^21 tons of liquid and plastic heavy metals swirling around inside of it.

      Sounds legit.

      1. I also like to think of these statements in relation to the idea of “only experts really understand.”

        There’s no doubt the main author of the paper is brilliant, well-educated, and accomplished. However, his degrees are in Agricultural Engineering (BA), Engineering Geology (MSc), and Geography (PhD). It would seem to me that only the second one would give him any authority to declare that is is “absolutely” climate change which is causing this.

        1. And if it is climate change, it seems like more of a curiosity than anything.

          I read something years ago about how damming up rivers was slowing (or was it speeding up?) the Earth’s rotation by some tiny but measurable amount because most of the big dams are at higher latitudes so they change the mass distribution. It’s kind of interesting, but not really pertinent to anyone except maybe the people who run the atomic clocks.

      2. It may be legit, but if so, it says a lot more about out ability to measure really small quantities than anything else. I don’t think that there is any reason to think that changing pole drift directions is going to make any noticeable difference to anything.

  21. First science and now AGs, heh Nick? Guess only libertarians can pander to conspiracy theorists. Paging Jesse Walker…

    1. Please, tell us more about the infallible priesthood.

    2. We post links to Climategate emails and findings showing that, yes, there was actually a conspiracy.

      We post links to Climate Change Accountability Institute paper that shows, yes, there actually is a conspiracy.

      Look up the definition sometime. These pretty well meet it, although they have gotten so bold that they don’t even feel the need to keep their plotting and conspiring to do harm secret any more.

      1. they have gotten so bold that they don’t even feel the need to keep their plotting and conspiring to do harm secret any more.

        That’s because they know they can count on the media to never report it, and millions of useless idiots like JackAss here to continue buying their bullshit and regurgitating it for the consumption of other mouth breathing retards.

    3. 97%!!!!!!

      1. At a minimum.

        1. Outside of Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe is indisputably recognized as a dictator who “wins” 99% of the vote by intimidation and fraud.

          Outside of the cloistered halls of the climate cult, …

        2. Why did you tell your retarded cousin about this place, jackass?

          1. Which one is really the retard, though?

            Jackand Ace makes no pretense about understanding any of it. He is happy to be a useful idiot (emphasis on the idiot). Happy Sophist upthread seems to think quite highly of his own intellect.

  22. Of course I didn’t read the article, but from the headline I can’t tell if the potential conspiracy is between the various AGs or between the Climate Warming Skeptics.

    1. RTFA, dipshit.

  23. RE: Are State Attorneys General Attacking Climate Change Critics Engaging in a Conspiracy?

    What?
    Government officials engaging in a conspiracy?
    That’s preposterous!
    That’s like saying government entities are a monopoly.

    1. Government is a conspiracy.

  24. So for people who think voting doesn’t matter, isn’t this one pretty enormous issue that the Republicans are vastly better on?

  25. We need some Western State AG’s to go after the IPCC for lying.

  26. Is this prosecutable? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new…..ticle.html

  27. Want to meet a girl? come on http://goo.gl/mxiosK
    the Best adult Dating site!

  28. Start making more money weekly. This is a valuable part time work for everyone. The best part work from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2k each week.Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more details Check this link??

    Clik This Link inYour Browser
    ? ? ? ? http://www.MaxPost30.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.