Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Yes, Let’s Prosecute Climate-Change Fraud — and Start with the Scaremongers
National Review ^ | 4/8/2016 | David French

Posted on 04/09/2016 6:03:35 AM PDT by HomerBohn

If propounding pseudoscience in pursuit of self-serving goals is a crime, here are some hardened offenders.

The attorneys general of New York and California are on the warpath. They’re fed up with dissent over the science and politics of global warming, and they’re ready to investigate the liars.

California’s Kamala Harris and New York’s Eric Schneiderman have Exxon in their sights, and they’re trying to pry open the books to see whether the corporation properly warned shareholders “about the risk to its business from climate change.” Not to be outdone, Attorney General Loretta Lynch revealed that the federal Department of Justice has “discussed” the possibility of civil suits against the fossil-fuel industry. The smell of litigation is in the air. Some people are worried about little things like the “First Amendment,” “academic freedom,” and “scientific integrity.” Not me. I hate unscientific nonsense.

So if Harris and Schneiderman are up for suing people who’ve made piles of cash peddling exaggerations and distortions, let’s roll out some test cases. I’ve got three ideas: United States v. Al Gore.

Ten years ago, the former vice president of the United States launched an extraordinarily lucrative career by selling climate doomsday. While promoting his Oscar-winning documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, he made a shockingly false statement. He said that unless the world took “drastic measures” to reduce greenhouse gases, it would reach a “point of no return” in ten years. RELATED: Apocalypse Delayed Ten years have passed.

Is there a scientific consensus that the world has reached a “point of no return?” No? Gore’s documentary grossed almost $50 million worldwide. I’d suggest that number as a starting point for damages. But of course you’ll need to subpoena all his business records and communications.

We wouldn’t want him hiding his ill-gotten gains, and goodness knows that public schools could use some cash. New York v. ABC/Walt Disney Company: If you thought the case against Gore was compelling, I present to you this complete absurdity from ABC:

(Watch this video at the link)

Broadcasting from the heart of New York, Good Morning America claimed that in 2015 milk would cost almost $13 a gallon, gas would be more than $9 a gallon, “flames [would] cover hundreds of square miles,” one billion people would be malnourished, and Manhattan would be flooding — all because of climate change. ABC is a for-profit company, part of the Walt Disney conglomerate. Last year, Disney held approximately $88 billion in assets. Some of those assets represent the ill-gotten gains from exaggerations and fearmongering used to stoke public hysteria and increase ratings for a flailing morning news-and-lifestyle broadcast.

United States v. United Nations:

In 2007, the chairman of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Rajenda Pachauri, said, “If there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late. . . . What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment.”

The IPCC has received tens of millions of dollars while hyping the threat of global warming. While its current factual predictions can’t be tested until the dates pass, Pachauri’s statement is patently false and at odds with “settled science.” And we all know that settled science settles everything.

RELATED: How to Put Climate Alarmism on Ice These three cases are just the start.

Environmental scaremongering is a lucrative business, and the evidence of exaggeration is everywhere. If Lynch, Harris, and Schneiderman file their first lawsuits now, they can file a second round by Christmas, when the season’s first snowflakes provide the next set of litigation targets — all the hysterics who predicted the end of snow.

Or maybe — just maybe — these liberal attorneys general aren’t truly interested in the truth and are instead radical ideologues hoping to shut down dissent. Perhaps they’re trying to advance their political careers by appeasing the social-justice Left and further establishing the new pagan religion of environmentalism. There is a chance that we can’t trust the government to be fair. In that case, forget everything I said. A nation can’t sue its way into clarity, but it can sue its way into oppression. The First Amendment still matters. Rather than settle scores, let’s extend the debate.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Government
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-24 next last
We already know without asking what the socialists Sanders and Clinton think about Gorebal Warming, but what are the opinions of Messrs. Trump and Cruz?

The Gorebal Warming schemers want to shut down any debate, to establish another way to control people with no apparent force , and to enrich colossal government and the well-connected. The predictions of doom from rising temperatures melts into insignificance compared with the loss of freedom we are experiencing.

1 posted on 04/09/2016 6:03:35 AM PDT by HomerBohn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: HomerBohn

Climate hoax deniers are rabidly insane.


2 posted on 04/09/2016 6:12:04 AM PDT by Ancient Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HomerBohn

Whenever liberals promote ideas like punishing people for their personal opinions, they never consider the possibility that it could be used against them. Universities used to provide people with educations in which one could learn to think things like this through, but not any more. Now they fret about their feelings and ‘safe zones’, and never learn how to use their minds.


3 posted on 04/09/2016 6:16:03 AM PDT by Spok ("What're you going to believe-me or your own eyes?" -Marx (Groucho))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HomerBohn

I think that would a great idea.

“In law, standing or locus standi is the term for the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party’s participation in the case. Standing exists from one of three causes:

The party is directly subject to an adverse effect by the statute or action in question, and the harm suffered will continue unless the court grants relief in the form of damages or a finding that the law either does not apply to the party or that the law is void or can be nullified. This is called the “something to lose” doctrine, in which the party has standing because they directly will be harmed by the conditions for which they are asking the court for relief.

The party is not directly harmed by the conditions by which they are petitioning the court for relief but asks for it because the harm involved has some reasonable relation to their situation, and the continued existence of the harm may affect others who might not be able to ask a court for relief. In the United States, this is the grounds for asking for a law to be struck down as violating the First Amendment, because while the plaintiff might not be directly affected, the law might so adversely affect others that one might never know what was not done or created by those who fear they would become subject to the law – the so-called “chilling effects” doctrine.

The party is granted automatic standing by act of law.[1] Under some environmental laws in the United States, a party may sue someone causing pollution to certain waterways without a federal permit, even if the party suing is not harmed by the pollution being generated. The law allows them to receive attorney’s fees if they substantially prevail in the action. In some U.S. states, a person who believes a book, film or other work of art is obscene may sue in their own name to have the work banned directly without having to ask a District Attorney to do so.

In the United States, the current doctrine is that a person cannot bring a suit challenging the constitutionality of a law unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that he/she/it is or will “imminently” be harmed by the law. Otherwise, the court will rule that the plaintiff “lacks standing” to bring the suit, and will dismiss the case without considering the merits of the claim of unconstitutionality. To have a court declare a law unconstitutional, there must be a valid reason for the lawsuit. The party suing must have something to lose in order to sue unless it has automatic standing by action of law”

They are taking money out of my pocket by fiat creating a “tax” which will be passed along by companies affected, finally reaching us. Since the “tax” hasn’t been initiated in congress, it is in effect “illegal.” Since this will harm the people of the United States, we in fact have “standing to sue.”

In addition, we will face a “something to lose” scenario in which case we should be granted “relief” from the courts.

Finally, and I love this one, chuckled while I am writing it, us and our children are being discriminated against and bullied by teachers, government agencies and world bodies for something, not unlike how minorities have been discriminated against. I want protection under the law for my beliefs, just like Atheists.

The problem we have today is not enough of us can join together to fight this because we look at global warming as something so ridiculous it doesn’t warrant a fight. However, like every liberal policy designed to destroy liberty in the name of fairness, the camels nose is under the tent and soon it will be too late.


4 posted on 04/09/2016 6:17:26 AM PDT by EQAndyBuzz (United we stand, divided we fall. I think the establishment has divided us enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HomerBohn
Beginning with Al Gore!
5 posted on 04/09/2016 6:23:47 AM PDT by SandRat (Duty - Honor - Country! What else needs said?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EQAndyBuzz

The OIL Industry could STOP ALL OF THIS NONSENSE TOMORROW:

And if Exxon were smart and had any clue, they would immediately and very publicly announce that they Are CLOSING Down ALL Operations in these States in an effort to avoid any conflict of interest.

That would ELIMINATE 50% of the Gasoline for California and New York OVERNIGHT.


6 posted on 04/09/2016 6:42:07 AM PDT by eyeamok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: HomerBohn; All

Ted Cruz has been at the forefront, repeatedly saying that anthropogenic “global warming” is a fraud.

Trump has tweeted that “global warming” is a fraud.


7 posted on 04/09/2016 6:53:51 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
Ted Cruz has been at the forefront, repeatedly saying that anthropogenic “global warming” is a fraud.

I'll worry about global warming after Trump builds the wall and sends those here illegally back to their home country.

8 posted on 04/09/2016 6:57:52 AM PDT by jpsb (Never believe anything in politics until it has been officially denied. Otto von Bismark)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: eyeamok

“The OIL Industry could STOP ALL OF THIS NONSENSE TOMORROW:

And if Exxon were smart and had any clue, they would immediately and very publicly announce that they Are CLOSING Down ALL Operations in these States in an effort to avoid any conflict of interest.

That would ELIMINATE 50% of the Gasoline for California and New York OVERNIGHT.”

They would be “nationalized” within 48 hours.


9 posted on 04/09/2016 6:59:45 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: HomerBohn

Be educated, not just entertained! Listen to The Jacki Daily Show!
On this week’s @JackiDailyShow, efforts to stifle free speech on the internet, on facebook, silencing those who challenge climate change science, such as Phelim Macaleer @PhelimMcAleer
Click on the link below to the complete podcast! Make sure you click to like her page!
https://soundcloud.com/jacki-daily/jacki-talks-about-protecting-free-speech-online-432016


10 posted on 04/09/2016 7:00:07 AM PDT by RaceBannon (Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HomerBohn

Be educated, not just entertained! Listen to The Jacki Daily Show!
Jacki is joined by #Todd Young, #ToddYoung the COO of the Southeastern Legal Foundation, to discuss the Washington Times op-ed piece: Obama Lawyers Would Deny Free Speech to Climate Change Skeptics.
Jacki also talks with Frank Gaffney, @SecureFreedom , ?@frankgaffney the Founder and President of the Center for Security Policy, about threats to the electric grid.
Jacki also speaks with #Glenn Gannt of the TX Energy Council, @TxEnergyCouncil tells us all about the college scholarships they are giving away to students entering the energy sector, especially petroleum and chemical engineers.
Only on The Jacki Daily Show!

Click on the link below to the complete podcast! Make sure you click to like her page!
https://soundcloud.com/jacki-daily/obama-lawyers-attack-free-speech-re-climate-issues-gaffney-on-the-grid-win-scholarship
Go to Jacki’s FaceBook page and like her show! https://www.facebook.com/jackidaily/
http://player.listenlive.co/29591 Click HERE to listen live on THE BLAZE RADIO at 2PM every Sunday!
Follow Jacki Daily on TWITTER @JackiDailyShow !
http://app.stitcher.com/browse/feed/70425/episodes Listen to The Jacki Daily Show on Stitcher by clicking here!


11 posted on 04/09/2016 7:00:53 AM PDT by RaceBannon (Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Thanks.


12 posted on 04/09/2016 7:05:11 AM PDT by HomerBohn (Liberals and slinkies: they're good for nothing, but you smile as you shove them down the stairs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: HomerBohn

Cruz is chairman of the Senates Subcommittee on Space, Science, and Competitiveness ..... WHAT HAS HE DONE???
NASA still funds Global warming research more than ever ... and the Space and Aeronautical programs evaporate/degenerate!
Fellow Freeper’s, he’s all talk!!!!


13 posted on 04/09/2016 7:11:39 AM PDT by Swirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HomerBohn
 photo payn160314_zpsu4ry0dxm.gif
14 posted on 04/09/2016 7:18:21 AM PDT by Huskrrrr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ancient Man

OK!! Everybody pay attention!

Lesson for today:

1. The sun is 1,300,000 times as big as the earth.

2. The sun is a giant nuclear furnace that controls the climates of all its planets.

3. The earth is one of the sun’s planets.

4. The earth is a speck in comparison to the size of the sun.

5. Inhabitants of the earth are less than specks.

Study Question: How do less-than-specks in congress plan to control the sun?


15 posted on 04/09/2016 7:42:06 AM PDT by abclily
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

They would be “nationalized” within 48 hours.

And if they Permanently Disabled their Production Facilities before the Announcement,IT WOULD NOT MATTER What the Government did.

If they were Nationalized by the Government, The Industry would FAIL Miserably and we would still end up as Venezuela, at least my way they Have a Fighting Chance.


16 posted on 04/09/2016 7:50:29 AM PDT by eyeamok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: eyeamok

And they would respond to their shareholders, how?


17 posted on 04/09/2016 7:55:58 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: HomerBohn

It’s time to lock the loonies back in the bin.


18 posted on 04/09/2016 8:12:01 AM PDT by This I Wonder32460
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ancient Man

Trying to grasp what you are saying, do you mean: Those who deny that climate change is a hoax are rabidly insane?


19 posted on 04/09/2016 8:16:10 AM PDT by This I Wonder32460
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

I am very sorry shareholders but the Attorney Generals of these States leave us NO CHOICE, we can Not in good conscience continue to do business in these states that believe our very existence is GENOCIDAL IN NATURE.


20 posted on 04/09/2016 8:18:32 AM PDT by eyeamok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-24 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson