Should 'Climate Deniers' be charged with RICO violations? lol

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 20 Sep 2015 19:03:23 -0400

Promoters of ‘official’ climate, which is defined as the works of the UN IPCC, are desperate. Twenty of them, including Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) members like Kevin Trenberth, asked the Obama administration to file Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) charges against climate deniers. All but two of the twenty are at Universities, and the two are career bureaucrats associated with the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). They all live off the public purse, but somehow in the weird world of climate science that is untainted money. The RICO charge is ad hominem, not about the science. If Virtually all the research funding for global warming comes from government and goes to those supporting the unproven hypothesis. There is no comparison between the amounts of government money going to the ‘official’ side of the science and that going to skeptics.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/19/climate-science-turned-monster/
*take note who is doing this and why*

Climate Science Turned Monster

Guest Opinion: Dr. Tim Ball Promoters of ‘official’ climate, which is defined as the works of the UN IPCC, are desperate. Twenty of them, including Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) ...

Response by LCpl Mark Lefler made Sep 20 at 2015 7:05 PM

LCpl Mark Lefler — Sun, 20 Sep 2015 19:05:58 -0400

climate deniers just need to be Gibbs'd.

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Sep 20 at 2015 7:21 PM

LTC Stephen F. — Sun, 20 Sep 2015 19:21:11 -0400

No they should not be charged as violating RICO which is supposed to be focused on organized crime SSgt Private RallyPoint Member.
The scientists and meteorologists considered opinions on the "science" of climate change is not unified to any major degree.
It is virtually impossible to be truly objective in the discussion about who to "blame" for climate change. On the one hand there is evidence for significant shifts in the global climate millenia prior to to the industrial ages - ice ages for instance with subsequent thaws [why Iceland which is greener than Greenland is for instance :-)]
One of the most humorous things to me is the rush to blame carbon dioxide emissions. CO2 is required by all plants for photosynthesis to occur which in turn releases O2 into the atmosphere which is required by all animal forms including human beings to survive. The symbiotic relationship between plant and animal life is a long established fact and is critical to all life forms on this planet - except for viruses :-)

Response by SSG Buddy Kemper made Sep 20 at 2015 7:23 PM

SSG Buddy Kemper — Sun, 20 Sep 2015 19:23:23 -0400

PROBABLY!!!! But I'm pleading the 5th!!!!

Response by SrA Jonathan Carbonaro made Sep 20 at 2015 7:25 PM

SrA Jonathan Carbonaro — Sun, 20 Sep 2015 19:25:06 -0400

So you want them to have RICO charges filed on them? For disagreeing with your opinion on the climate?
I thought 'Merica was a Free Country? Or is only Free for people who agree with you?

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 20 at 2015 9:41 PM

Cpl Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 20 Sep 2015 21:41:15 -0400

The word fraud comes to mind. Manipulating data to get federal grant money should most certainly be a crime.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 21 at 2015 2:22 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 21 Sep 2015 02:22:22 -0400

Just follow the money. It always leads to what is motivating people and why.
Doing that will tell you everything you need to know about why people go into hysterics about this.

Response by TSgt Kenneth Ellis made Sep 21 at 2015 3:03 AM

TSgt Kenneth Ellis — Mon, 21 Sep 2015 03:03:14 -0400

They tried to use that to but pro life protesters in jail. But like the film maker if Obama could put them in jail he would.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 21 at 2015 10:12 PM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 21 Sep 2015 22:12:50 -0400

They shouldn't press charges. The defense as you said has a great case against Feds in that they have a vendetta against the results of research. They need a lot of evidence to connect the researchers to the mafia, terrorist organizations, or drug cartels. Even with the patriot act to do surveillance and forensics, the defense can claim first ammendment rights violations. The panel on climate change should stick to science , not criminal court.

Response by SSG Gerhard S. made Sep 23 at 2015 9:58 PM

SSG Gerhard S. — Wed, 23 Sep 2015 21:58:26 -0400

CPT L S , there have been times the earth had no glacial ice at all, and times when much of the earth was covered with ice. There is little doubt that climate change happens all the time. It happened millions of years before man even inhabited the earth. Trying to blame any climate trends on mankind is not based on science, but rather on trying to accomplish a political agenda. It is also important to note that many who are pushing this computerized climate model theory and it's associated "solutions" are somehow linked to people who are making millions or billions off of the proposed solutions.

Also, if one takes a look at T Boone Pickens, one will find that his schemes are ALL based on government subsidies and result in millions upon millions of taxpayer subsides to form his profits. I would think, given some of your statements, Sir, that you would be against the Federal government taking from the middle class to give to rich corporate cronies in the form of tax subsidies. Are you really in favor of taking from the poor, and middle class to create huge "profits" for billionaires?

Lastly, regarding the fallacious "consensus" argument that claims 97% of scientists agree, I would point you to this WSJ article that recounts how those numbers were reached.... For instance:

"The "97 percent" figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make."
Regards.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB [login to see] [login to see] [login to see] [login to see]

The Myth of the Climate Change '97%'

In The Wall Street Journal, Joseph Bast and Roy Spencer write about the the origin of the false belief—constantly repeated—that almost all scientists agree about global warming.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 15 at 2015 4:25 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 15 Oct 2015 16:25:37 -0400

"Controversy continues to swirl around the September 1 letter from 20 climate scientists to President Barack Obama, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and White House science adviser John Holdren requesting a RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) investigation of “the fossil fuel industry and their supporters.” The scientists allege that the aforementioned interests “knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, in order to forestall America’s response to climate change.” In May, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) called for a RICO investigation of “fossil fuel companies and their allies.” The scientists “strongly endorse” Sen. Whitehouse’s proposal."

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/15/are-jagdish-shukla-and-the-rico20-guilty-of-racketeering/

Are Jagdish Shukla and the #RICO20 Guilty of Racketeering?

Guest opinion by Marlo Lewis, Jr, CEI Controversy continues to swirl around the September 1 letter from 20 climate scientists to President Barack Obama, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and White Ho...

Response by Col Joseph Lenertz made Feb 22 at 2016 2:42 PM

Col Joseph Lenertz — Mon, 22 Feb 2016 14:42:34 -0500

Climate change is real, but what the IPCC does is not science. The scientific method uses 3 steps to formulate and modify a hypothesis like Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW): systematic observation, measurement, and experiment. The challenge to use the scientific method for AGW is two-fold...scale in time, and scale in size. Tree growth rings and land based thermometers have been used to approximate temperature (with errors due to heat island effect and poor site selection ignored). So until satellite temp data became available, the error bars were larger than the increase itself. When sat temp data is used, no global temp growth is seen in the past 18 years. Then, instead of actual experiments, which are impossible, proxies are used and modeled. The problem with the models is, they never capture the full complexity of multiple non-linear input functions, so they end up reflecting the bias of the programmer rather than the system being studied. So, 95% of models have over-predicted temp rises. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/10/95-of-climate-models-agree-the-observations-must-be-wrong/ This is unlikely a random result.

95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong

Note: This is a repost from Dr. Roy Spencer's blog entry last Friday. I've done so because it needs the wide distribution that WUWT can offer. The one graph he has produced (see below) says it all....