Saturday, September 19, 2015

Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics

Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics


4:39 PM 09/17/2015

The science on global warming is settled, so settled that 20 climate scientists are asking President Barack Obama to prosecute people who disagree with them on the science behind man-made global warming.

Scientists from several universities and research centers even asked Obama to use the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) to prosecute groups that “have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, as a means to forestall America’s response to climate change.”

RICO was a law designed to take down organized crime syndicates, but scientists now want it to be used against scientists, activists and organizations that voice their disagreement with the so-called “consensus” on global warming. The scientists repeated claims made by environmentalists that groups, especially those with ties to fossil fuels, have engaged in a misinformation campaign to confuse the public on global warming.

“The actions of these organizations have been extensively documented in peer-reviewed academic research and in recent books,” the scientists wrote.

But these riled up academics aren’t the first to suggest using RICO to go after global warming skeptics. The idea was first put forward by Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, who argued using RICO was effective at taking down the tobacco industry.

“In 1999, the Justice Department filed a civil RICO lawsuit against the major tobacco companies… alleging that the companies ‘engaged in and executed — and continue to engage in and execute — a massive 50-year scheme to defraud the public, including consumers of cigarettes, in violation of RICO,’” Whitehouse wrotein the Washington Post in May.

“We strongly endorse Senator Whitehouse’s call for a RICO investigation,” the scientists wrote to Obama. “The methods of these organizations are quite similar to those used earlier by the tobacco industry. A RICO investigation (1999 to 2006) played an important role in stopping the tobacco industry from continuing to deceive the American people about the dangers of smoking.”

“If corporations in the fossil fuel industry and their supporters are guilty of the misdeeds that have been documented in books and journal articles, it is imperative that these misdeeds be stopped as soon as possible so that America and the world can get on with the critically important business of finding effective ways to restabilize the Earth’s climate, before even more lasting damage is done,” the scientists added.

This year has been a trying one for global warming skeptics. Earlier this year, Democratic lawmakers began an investigation into scientists who disagreed with the White House’s stance on global warming. Many of these skeptical scientists were often cited by those critical of regulations to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

Arizona Democratic Rep. Raul Grijalva went after universities employing these researchers, which resulted in one expert being forced to get out of the field of climate research altogether.

“I am simply not initiating any new research or papers on the topic and I have ring-fenced my slowly diminishing blogging on the subject,” Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. of the University of Colorado wrote on his blog.

“Congressman Grijalva doesn’t have any evidence of any wrongdoing on my part, either ethical or legal, because there is none,” Pielke wrote. “He simply disagrees with the substance of my testimony – which is based on peer-reviewed research funded by the US taxpayer, and which also happens to be the consensus of the IPCC (despite Holdren’s incorrect views).”

Read more:


  1. Not to worry William, when Republicans again have power, they can go and defund all the universities that preach what they don't like, see planned parenthood. Same ol shit, different day. You fervently believe abortion is genocide to the black race, people who believe climate change is man made believe their issue is genocide to the entire human race. You believe you are right and all who disagree are wrong. I'm not seeing a lot of difference here.

  2. It's interesting to me that you who supports the killing of babies for profit can sit in your climate controlled Nevada Unishpere and spout off about the restabilization of earth's atmosphere.

    Who died and left you boss hypocrit.

    1. Let's be real here William, nothing I say is of interest to you. You have a good point about the climate controlled unisphere, I did actually chuckle at that. But you showed the entirety of my point, you are easily trolled on this because you are so fervent and you so utterly believe exactly what I said, you are correct and righteous, and I'm just a liberal asshole you have to tolerate because of the first amendment.

  3. Denial of climate change will eventually cost the republican party dearly along with all the other 1850 concepts that they hold so dearly to their vests. America's younger population definitively believes that mankind has an effect on the earth's climate and this denial idea will soon fall just like the prohibition on gay marriage. It is a much different world from 1850 but the repubs have yet to get it.
    Hell the 60's when I grew up was a much safer and happier time. But time marches on. It's gone and it is not coming back as much as it would re-change America for the better. Time to move on and make things the best we can for the times we actually live in not the ones we wish for.

    1. Key point, younger people. A large narrative that I think we are being force fed is that we simply cannot have cleaner energy and economic growth. Of course, we seemingly cannot have a more equitable distribution of income and economic growth either, but that's another argument. I was a gearhead in highschool and loved seeing new technology come along that was tweaking more and more efficiency out of a basic idea that was unchanging, that idea was internal combustion. I'll admit, I love the look of a tri-power GTO engine or Shelby Cobra engine over the look of my hybrid engine but I'm glad that both exist and that we had the wherewithal to create a desire and market for the latter.

      William's point just above is not lost on me. I find it astonishing that relatively few homes here have solar. It is catching on and more and more new homes have it built in. It would be nearly impossible, given the small space that most homes have here, to build an "off the grid" setup. Still, if a majority of homes here had solar, I believe we would use less energy at precisely the time when the needs is greatest, which is during the heat of the day. We could employ people to mount them and service them, and if we blocked China from dumping panels here like everything else, we could make them here as well and believe me, there is plenty of land here in Las Vegas to set up panel factories. If we ever buy a house here, I will put panels on it.

    2. Aren't you being selfish by using precious resources to live in a desert?

    3. I guess you forgot the assassinations, the burning if cities, Vietnam, and the race riots of the sick sixties Pollyanna.

    4. "Aren't you being selfish by using precious resources to live in a desert?"

      You are being a smug ass asking that, but again, it's not a question without merit. We do what we can here to be efficient. We wash clothes and really dont' use the dryer, and we both have cars with decent millage. The house we are renting is zero scaped without grass. We use a lot of electricity in the hot months for AC, but in the fall, winter and spring months, we really use the heat as little as possible. No matter where someone lives, their use of energy has an impact on the planet. There may be an issue with water here someday as there will for the entire West for that matter.

      We are still paying the price for the 60's in a lot of ways. Doesn't negate that there were some really cool cars produced in that period.

    5. I think it is awful that ric lives in a State that produces so much tobacco. Hasn't he heard that smoking can be hazardous to your health?