And here is some of the testimony of those calling for RICO. Really helps those that claim the manipulation of data has been going on FOR AGW. Oops! Your claim is that it is only going after corporations is naive at best. Read on.
Q. So what you’re telling me is, while you’re not aware of the specifics of RICO and how the law works, you think that what ExxonMobil specifically was doing was troubling and you wanted that stopped?
A. Correct.
…
Q. So what is climate denial? I’ll ask that.
A. What’s climate denial? Good question.
Activities that are intentionally misrepresenting what is known to be true about climate change so as to convince people that climate change is not, in fact, a reality.
Q. So climate denial broadly bothers you then?
A. Mischaracterization of the truth specifically intended to undermine the public’s well-being, yes, typically does bother me.
Q. Can you give me an example of these misrepresentations by ExxonMobil or others?
A. No, not off the top of my head.
…
There have been activities being funded by to American – the 9 American people and people worldwide.
Q. So you believe that someone knowingly misrepresenting a risk posed by climate change merits investigation?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Okay. So if someone, for example, were to knowingly hide data indicating an increase in temperatures over the years, that would merit investigation?
A. Say it again, please.
Q. If someone were to hide or misrepresent or deceive the public relating to data which showed an increase in global temperatures over time, that would merit investigation?
A. It would be — I suppose it depends on who it is. But, yes, it would certainly be a deception. And as such, it would be an act that, in my view, ought to be exposed.
…
Q. So you said hiding an increase in temperatures would be a knowing deception, depending on who it is. I believe that’s what you said a minute ago; is that correct?
A. Sure.
Q. What if you knowingly hid a decrease in 20 global temperatures? Would that be a knowing deception?
A. Sure.
…
Q. I have one question — I’m sorry, Thomas, and Professor Maibach — I forgot.
I want to follow up on one thing. Mr. Hardin had asked you about individuals, if they knowingly deceived the American — is – knowingly deceived the American people about the risk of climate change is the offense or what warrants investigation, right?
A. In my view.
Q. Okay. So if Christy and Spenser[sic] — they keep the satellite temperature record. If they were found to have increased — I’m sorry, not increased — hidden an increase in the temperature in the satellite record, would that warrant investigation as knowingly deceiving the American people?
A. They — they as individual climate scientists, if they are fudging their data, then I would say, yes, that would be investigation worthy.
But I wouldn’t think that that would be investigation worthy by the Federal Government. I would think it would be investigation worthy by their funders or by the journals that had published their work.
MR. MONCURE: You’ve already made it clear that you’re not an expert on RICO. A. Correct.
MR. HORNER: But he is an expert on what he wrote. He’s the world’s leading expert on what he wrote. And he wrote that, “knowingly deceiving the American people about the risk of climate change warrants investigation.”
BY MR. HORNER:
Q. And I’m saying, it’s not just — I mean, of all the people who know, it would seem to be climate scientists as opposed to CEOs is my premise. So as opposed to going after CEOs, how about a scientist?
If they knowingly deceived the public by hiding an increase in temperatures, does that also warrant investigation? That’s my question.
A. It does.
And here comes the payoff!
Q. Okay. What if they hide a decline in 6 temperatures? Does that warrant an investigation?
A. Any knowing deception warrants – in science warrants an investigation.
