29 replies to this topic

[Chris]

16 Democrat AGs Begin Inquisition Against ‘Climate Change Disbelievers

 

A great article pointing out the parallels to the Spanish Inquisition.   Chris

 

http://dailysignal.c...e-disbelievers/

 

Beginning in 1478, the Spanish Inquisition systematically silenced any citizen who held views that did not align with the king’s. Using the powerful arm of the government, the grand inquisitor, Tomas de Torquemada, and his henchmen sought out all those who held religious, scientific, or moral views that conflicted with the monarch’s, punishing the “heretics” with jail sentences; property confiscation; fines; and in severe cases, torture and execution.

One of the lasting results of the Spanish Inquisition was a stifling of speech, thought, and scientific debate throughout Spain. By treating one set of scientific views as absolute, infallible, and above critique, Spain silenced many brilliant individuals and stopped the development of new ideas and technological innovations. Spain became a scientific backwater.

As an old adage says, those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. So we now have a new inquisition underway in America in the 21st century—something that would have seemed unimaginable not too long ago.

Treating climate change as an absolute, unassailable fact, instead of what it is—an unproven, controversial scientific theory—a group of state attorneys general have announced that they will be targeting any companies that challenge the catastrophic climate change religion.

Speaking at a press conference on March 29, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said, “The bottom line is simple: Climate change is real.” He went on to say that if companies are committing fraud by “lying” about the dangers of climate change, they will “pursue them to the fullest extent of the law.”

The coalition of 17 inquisitors are calling themselves “AGs United for Clean Power.” The coalition consists of 15 state attorneys general (California, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington State), as well as the attorneys general of the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands. Sixteen of the seventeen members are Democrats, while the attorney general for the Virgin Islands, Claude Walker, is an independent..........

.......................Although the Spanish Inquisition ended almost 200 years ago, the American Climate Change Inquisition appears to be just getting started. By threatening legal action and huge fines against anyone who declines to believe their climate theories, the attorneys general in this coalition are trying to end the debate over climate change, declaring any dissent to be blasphemy regardless of what many scientists believe.

This strikes a serious blow against the free flow of ideas and the vigorous debate over scientific issues that is a hallmark of an advanced, technological society like ours.

 

 

[GrumpyOldGuy]

Funny how you completely missed the point of the AG investigations.  These state AG's have started investigations into public companies that may have known about climate change (without regard to whether it is human caused or not), and they also may have know that climate changes would have a material effect on their business operations, possibly negative effects.  Then these companies failed to inform the public, investors, and their stock holders.  Failure to inform regarding material effects on a public company's operations is a violation of SEC rules and is a crime (fraud under RICO statutes).  It is appropriate for AG's to investigate. 

 

The AG's indicate they will NOT be pursuing individuals, politicians, scientists, gov't officials, news media, celebrities, or private corporations.  They will only be investigating public corporations that failed to disclose information they may have known about that would have a material effect on their business.  Where's the problem??

 

The article you posted is a complete misrepresentation of the issue.  No surprise, considering the source, but a complete misrepresentation none-the-less.   

[Chris]

Corporations are people, stockholders are people, people make their livelihood working for corporations.  Just ask anybody who used work in the coal industry and now is unemployed courtesy of our "coal killing" president.  This kind of legal action by government is just one more tactic you "warmists" use to wreck the economy, tax us more, and promote your faux religion of man made global warming.  Chris

[GrumpyOldGuy]

You don't get it.  When a public company becomes aware of a situation that could affect their business operations and the value of the company (and by extension, the value of the stock), that company has a fiduciary responsibility and a legal requirement to inform the public, their stock holders, and their investors.  If they don't inform, it's called fraud and subject to legal action under RICO statutes.

 

Do you own stock in public companies?  Do you have mutual funds, an IRA, or 401(k) that is invested in publically traded equities?  Do you expect the companies you have invested in to operate in an ethical, transparent, and legal manner?  If the answer is "yes", then you should applaud these actions by the states AG.  They are protecting YOUR financial interests.

[The Average Joe]

Funny how you completely missed the point of the AG investigations.  These state AG's have started investigations into public companies that may have known about climate change (without regard to whether it is human caused or not), and they also may have know that climate changes would have a material effect on their business operations, possibly negative effects.  Then these companies failed to inform the public, investors, and their stock holders.  Failure to inform regarding material effects on a public company's operations is a violation of SEC rules and is a crime (fraud under RICO statutes).  It is appropriate for AG's to investigate. 

 

The AG's indicate they will NOT be pursuing individuals, politicians, scientists, gov't officials, news media, celebrities, or private corporations.  They will only be investigating public corporations that failed to disclose information they may have known about that would have a material effect on their business.  Where's the problem??

 

The article you posted is a complete misrepresentation of the issue.  No surprise, considering the source, but a complete misrepresentation none-the-less.   

 

And funny how you completely missed the strategic plan I linked showing this to be a strategy to shut down critics. You also completely missed the Congressional testimony I presented on this topic that showed they would indeed go after individuals.

 

And this from the recent announcement:

n March 30, 2016, Attorney General Schneiderman, former Vice President Al Gore, and attorneys general from Massachusetts, Virginia, Connecticut, Maryland, Vermont, as well as Attorney General Walker, held a press conference in New York City to announce “an unprecedented coalition of top law enforcement officials committed to aggressively protecting and building upon the recent progress the United States has made in combating climate change.” Schneiderman said that the group, calling itself “AGs United for Clean Power,” will address climate change by threatening criminal investigations and charges against companies, policy organizations, scientists, and others who disagree with its members’ climate policy agenda.

 

And it starts already. The Competitive Enterprise Institute (an outspoken "denier" thinktank and advocacy group) has just had 10 years of records subpoenaed.  The witch hunt begins. Silencing of critics is not science, nor is it American.

 

Ask yourself this. What if I'm right about AGW? How appalling would this behavior seem to you then?

[Chris]

You don't get it.  When a public company becomes aware of a situation that could affect their business operations and the value of the company (and by extension, the value of the stock), that company has a fiduciary responsibility and a legal requirement to inform the public, their stock holders, and their investors.  If they don't inform, it's called fraud and subject to legal action under RICO statutes.

 

Do you own stock in public companies?  Do you have mutual funds, an IRA, or 401(k) that is invested in publically traded equities?  Do you expect the companies you have invested in to operate in an ethical, transparent, and legal manner?  If the answer is "yes", then you should applaud these actions by the states AG.  They are protecting YOUR financial interests.

The only "fraud" here are these "warmists" using the immense power of  government to go after public companies to extort money from them (fines, fees, taxes).  They attempt to do this based on an unproven and baseless theory (AGW) that is really a political agenda hiding behind false science and wholesale data manipulation.  If anybody needs to be brought to trial under the RICO act it's all of the "warmists" who leave out, cherry pick, and manipulate data to get the answer they desire and thus keep their government funding rolling in.  It's a big business in itself, gorging at the trough of endless government money...!  You Sir, don't get it, and not at all.  Chris 

[GrumpyOldGuy]

Joe,  your post...

 

Schneiderman said that the group calling itself "AG's United for Clean Power" will address climate change by threatening investigations and charges against companies, policy organizations, scientists, and others who disagree with its members' climate policy agenda.

 

Joe,  WHERE do you get this garbage.  What you posted in a total lie and fabrication.  Just for fun, I listened to the entire press conference...and the words you posted were NEVER SAID, NEVER UTTERED, NEVER MENTIONED.  In fact, the sentiment wasn't even present.  Who makes this crap up for you??

 

The press conference centered around exactly what I stated previously.  The theme of the press conference was several states pooling their resources to investigate public companies that failed to inform, or mislead the public, stock holders, and investors regarding the material (financial) effects of climate change on their operations and business.  Failure to inform, or mislead, is defined with one word - fraud...and fraud is illegal.  And from the number of times it was mentioned, it appears they will be investigating only one company - XOM.

 

So your assertion that they will be pursuing "...companies (plural), policy organizations, scientists, and others..." is complete BS.  I invite you to listen to the entire press conference for yourself.  It's 60 minutes long.

[Chris]

Hey GoG,  Maybe I'll send you over a couple of tickets to a new movie.....?  “Climate Hustle”........    You can sit there and take it all in over a box of popcorn maybe..........?  

 

 

 

PARIS — For all those who still have to deal with that crazy uncle over the Christmas season who insists that human emissions of the gas of life, or carbon dioxide, are causing dangerous global warming, fear not — the solution has arrived. It is called Climate Hustle, and it masterfully debunks the claims of the “climate cult,” as many experts now refer to the alarmist movement, like no other resource produced thus far. Well-known analysts are already saying it will turn the tables on the alarmists. But more importantly, it will bring to light the facts and the science surrounding alleged man-made global warming that the establishment press has tried so hard to conceal.

The new documentary, which premiered in Paris this month amid the United Nations COP21 “climate change” summit, will serve as the perfect antidote to the increasingly shrill global-warming alarmism being peddled by the UN, the Obama administration, and others. It will also be exactly the tool you need to educate any remaining global-warming alarmists you may know, particularly those who got their inaccurate beliefs from error-riddled propaganda films such as Al Gore's discredited “documentary” An Inconvenient Truth, which was essentially banned in U.K. schools after a court recognized it was filled with falsehoods and ordered that children be warned about them in advance.

[The Average Joe]

Hey GoG,

In case you missed it, a press conference is not legally binding. Testimony before Congress is. I have already linked the direct testimony from one of the RICO 13 before Congress where he stated that individuals could be the target.  But see, people don't have to be prosecuted for there to be a chilling effect. The threat of big government is enough to quash many who would speak out. 

Let's use your "logic" on liberal ideas. There are more conservative governors than liberal. Let's have them task their attorney generals with prosecuting "green" companies that have near zero green products. Or maybe let's go after the solar and wind companies that lied their asses off to get government loans. Or maybe we should go after unions that continue to lie their asses off about rates of return, actuarial tables, and project feasibility (cough- bullet train)

Perhaps they could get a class action suit on behalf of all those that have died due to mosquito born disease due to the banning of DDT? Perhaps go after abortion providers based on nothing other than some nebulous "deception" given to pregnant women? Perhaps go after those that claim gun control results in less crime. I could easily make afar better case for all those being legitimate deceptions of the public. I could make an even better case for the farce that is AGW.  Conspiracies of silence and/or propaganda if you will.

Witch hunts are great....until you are pointed out as a witch by those that are threatened by you.

[GrumpyOldGuy]

Joe,  you stated..."I have already linked the direct testimony from one of the RICO 13 before Congress where he stated that individuals could be prosecuted".  Would you mind posting that link again?  I can't find it.  I'd like to read the testimony.   thank you.

[Chris]

Joe,  you stated..."I have already linked the direct testimony from one of the RICO 13 before Congress where he stated that individuals could be prosecuted".  Would you mind posting that link again?  I can't find it.  I'd like to read the testimony.   thank you.

Hey GoG,  listen to RFK Jr. at 45 seconds in on the Youtube Climate Hustle trailer link above.......    He want's to put the deniers in jail along with all the other "terrorists".....!   I've always hated the Kennedy family, this turd in particular.  Chris

[GrumpyOldGuy]

Joe,  would appreciate receiving that link to Senate testimony regarding prosecution of individuals who voice skepticism at global warming...thank you

[The Average Joe]

It;s in here somewhere. Don't have time to look. Can't remember which thread.  Here is something to chew on. SInce Jim Hansen (famed NASA head and massive warmist) was warning of the coming ice age in 1971, shouldn't he be indicted? I mean, he was deceiving the public right? And receiving public money right? Or maybe he was right then and deceiving the public now? Either way, one of his positions is wrong. Maybe, just maybe, it was an honest change of heart based on information known at the time.  AGW is after all, just a theory started out as to why temperatures aren't continuing towards a coming ice age. 

 

Or maybe we should indict the editors of Science that published the findings. They were obviously trying to deceive the public...or maybe that is what they are doing now.

 

And those evil oil companies knew in 1968 about the POTENTIAL rise in temperatures. This"Robinson Report" based its findings on the work of Moller.  Now Moller had some interesting insights in his paper:

F. Möller

Abstract

The numerical value of a temperature change under the influence of a CO2 change as calculated by Plass is valid only for a dry atmosphere. Overlapping of the absorption bands of CO2 and H2O in the range around 15 μ essentially diminishes the temperature changes. New calculations give ΔT = + 1.5° when the CO2 content increases from 300 to 600 ppm. Cloudiness diminishes the radiation effects but not the temperature changes because under cloudy skies larger temperature changes are needed in order to compensate for an equal change in the downward long-wave radiation. The increase in the water vapor content of the atmosphere with rising temperature causes a self-amplification effect which results in almost arbitrary temperature changes, e.g. for constant relative humidity ΔT = +10° in the above mentioned case. It is shown, however, that the changed radiation conditions are not necessarily compensated for by a temperature change. The effect of an increase in CO2 from 300 to 330 ppm can be compensated for completely by a change in the water vapor content of 3 per cent or by a change in the cloudiness of 1 per cent of its value without the occurrence of temperature changes at all. Thus the theory that climatic variations are effected by variations in the CO2 content becomes very questionable.

Journal of Geophysical Research

 

But wait, isn't he the abstract that the Robinson Report based their findings on?  Should we now indict him and the Journal of Geophysical Research for attempting to diminish the role of CO2?

 

Let's dig further into Moller:

 

 

In this case, we must distinguish between the assumptions that the water vapor content (in cm l.e.) remains unchanged in spite of heating (cooling) of the atmosphere and that it increases (decreases).  Constant absolute humidity means that the relative humidity (f) decreases from 75 to 70.34 per cent with a 1° or lowered by 4.66 per cent per deg.  According to the above-mentioned calculations, an increase in CO2 from 300 to 600 ppm gives us a temperature change ΔT = +1.5° for Δf = -4.66 per cent per deg, and a temperature change ΔT = +9.6° for Δf = 0.

[…]

These are variations in the cloudiness by 1 per cent of its value or in the water vapor content by 3 per cent of its value.  No meteorologist or climatologist would dare to determine the mean cloudiness or mean water content of the atmosphere with such accuracy; much less can a change of this order of magnitude be proved or its existence denied.  Because of these values the entire theory of climatic changes by CO2 variations is becoming questionable.

 

See, even in 1963 they knew the truth. Or even before that!

In 1906, Arrhenius calculated that a doubling of CO2 would result in a 1.5 degree C increase. The same thing Moller found 50+ years later. And 50 years after Moller, if you calculate relative humidity with HadCRUT data, you get...wait for it... a climate sensitivity of 1.4 degrees c for doubling of CO2.

 

So cloud cover and atmospheric moisture content are crucial to climate modeling. So why do none of the climate models used by the IPCC model cloud cover or moisture content?  I'll let them speak for themselves:

 

8.6.3.2.4 Conclusion on cloud feedbacks
Despite some advances in the understanding of the physical processes that control the cloud response to climate change and in the evaluation of some components of cloud feedbacks in current models, it is not yet possible to assess which of the model estimates of cloud feedback is the most reliable.

[GrumpyOldGuy]

Citing science from 50 years ago is hilarious.  In case you haven't noticed, science makes advances and gets better at what it's doing every day.

 

Using your approach, we should indict the entire Catholic Church because they claimed the earth was the center of the universe 400 years ago.  Quick...arrest that lying pope.

[2 Aces]

I think that clear-thinking, rational people will appreciate this MIT professor of meteorology, Dr. Richard Lindzen, and his wisdom...AND his opinion of the *climate change cult*, as he puts it. 2 posts below...(the video post is only 5 minutes).

I'll listen to him before listening to *the-sky-is-falling climate change hyper-fanatics*.


http://www.dailymail...s-fanatics.html