Washington DC – Scientists who dissent from the man-made global warming fears fired back at their warmist colleagues who want to see RICO investigations into skeptical claims. (See: ‘Bring them to court’: Warmist scientist Alan Betts wants RICO prosecutions of climate change opponents & Update: Scientist leading effort to prosecute climate skeptics under RICO ‘paid himself & his wife $1.5 million from govt climate grants for part-time work’)
“I would like to see RICO investigations for people on the other side of this,” demanded Climatologist and former NASA scientist Dr. Roy Spencer, at a CATO Institute climate forum in DC today. Spencer is the leader of a climate research group at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.
“People have been pushing for energy policies for people that we know will kill them. And they know that, and yet they have hidden that information from the public and from politicians for the purposes of advancing an agenda,” Spencer said.
“They should be careful what they ask” Spencer added, warning that the investigations “could be going the other direction in spades.”
Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry, the former Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, spoke about the new climate of intolerance. “I am very concerned by scientists calling to stifle dissent, disagreement,” Curry explained.
“The last three or four months have made it clear to me that I could be spending time in court. If it’s not just for RICO kind of activities but all of these lawsuits,” she said.
“It looks like climate scientists are going to be spending more time in courts. This never occurred to me until three or four months ago,” Curry lamented. Curry also challenged other climate claims and spoker of her evolving scientific views on climate change. “There is so much flouting over mythical 97% consensus…This is stifling debate. I fell into that (consensus trap) and after 2009 with Climategate, I said no more!” Curry explained. “There is enormous pressure for scientists to fall in line behind the consensus,” she added.
Meteorologist Dr. Ryan Maue of WeatherBELL Analytics said: “I have personal experience with two of the RICO 20” professors. Ryan warned that such efforts to silence scientific dissent will have a chilling effect on young scientists.
“The question would be for a graduate student — if you have a professor who is signing petitions calling for a RICO investigation based upon climate science — do you have to wonder if what you’re researching, is this going to be met with the approval of your professor? This is a sort of slippery slope in terms of research.”
“I find it rather appalling,” Maue concluded.
UN IPCC Lead Author Dr. Richard Tol Mocks UN Climate Treaty Process As ‘Futile Effort’ Where Countries ‘Pretend To Reduce Emissions’
Debate no more! Jailed for scientific dissent?! Twenty climate scientists, including Top UN scientist, call for RICO investigation of climate skeptics in letter to Obama
Listen: Warmist Thom Hartmann debates Skeptic: ‘You should be in jail’ for climate ‘denial’ ‘You are killing people.’ Blames skepticism for ‘dead children’ ‘I am calling you a criminal’
‘The Climate Mafia Rewrites Science History’: ‘RICO statute was passed to fight the mafia. Now it’s being used by the climate mafia to silence dissent’
‘Perp-walking the climate skeptics’: ‘A perp walk of PhDs.’ ‘Academic ayatollahs’ seek ‘a roundup of skeptical scientists’
Who’s Behind The Campaign to Bring RICO Charges Against ‘Climate Skeptics?’
Oh-oh! Global warming RICO letter writers may have opened Pandora’s Box – ‘Not only is criminalizing scientific investigation a bad idea, but the underlying contention that skeptics are funded by greedy polluters is false, a myth deliberately spread by the gang that profits from hysteria.’
US Congress To Investigate Climate Scientists Behind RICO Campaign
Congress Investigates Scientists Wanting To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics
RicoGate expands: Another warmist scientist who signed letter revealed to get over $600,000 from taxpayers
Those scientists who want to use RICO to prosecute AGW ‘deniers’ have a big problem – ‘The RICO letter’s assertion about extensively documented corruption is revealed to be a literally unsupportable talking point.’
Newsweek Oped: ‘Should Climate Change Deniers Be Prosecuted?’ – ‘It is remarkable how many advocates of this scheme seem to imagine that the First Amendment protects only truthful speech and thus (they think) has no application here because climate skepticism is false. That’s not the way it works.’
Tables turned: Climate profiteer who asked for RICO investigation of skeptics to be investigated by Congress – Chairman Smith: “IGES appears to be almost fully funded by taxpayer money while simultaneously participating in partisan political activity by requesting a RICO investigation of companies and organizations that disagree with the Obama administration on climate change. In fact, IGES has reportedly received $63 million from taxpayers since 2001, comprising over 98 percent of its total revenue during that time.” In light of the non-profit’s decision to remove the controversial letter from its website, Smith directs IGES to preserve “all e-mail, electronic documents, and data created since January 1, 2009, that can be reasonably anticipated to be subject to a request for production by the Committee.”
Sounds fair. What’s good for the goose must certainly be good for the gander. It would be good for the warmist effort for the accusers to be proven bias-free. Good luck……
Good Lord! Let’s have one big trial over this issue. The facts are very simple:
CO2 is a “trace gas” in air, insignificant by definition.It absorbs 1/7th as much IR, heat energy, from sunlight as water vapor which has 188 times as many molecules capturing 1200 times as much heat making 99.8% of all “global warming.” CO2 does only 0.2% of it. For this we should destroy our economy?
There is no “greenhouse effect” in an atmosphere. A greenhouse has a solid, clear cover that traps heat. The atmosphere does not trap heat as gas molecules cannot form surfaces to work as greenhouses. Molecules must be in contact, as in liquids and solids to form surfaces.
The Medieval Warming from 800 AD to 1300 AD Micheal Mann erased for his “hockey stick” was several Fahrenheit degrees warmer than anything “global warmers” fear. It was 500 years of world peace
and abundance, the longest in history.
Vostock Ice Core data analysis show CO2 increases follow temperature by 800 years 19 times in 450,000 years. Thus temperature change is cause and CO2 change is effect. This alone refutes the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis.
Methane is called “a greenhouse gas 20 to 500 times more potent than CO2,” by Heidi Cullen and Jim Hansen, but it is not per the energy absorption chart at the American Meteorological Society. It has an absorption profile very similar to nitrogen which is classified “transparent” to IR, heat waves and is
only present to 18 ppm. “Green vegans” blame methane in cow flatulence for global warming in their war against eating meat.
Carbon combustion generates 80% of our energy. Control and taxing of carbon would give the elected ruling class more power and money than anything since the Magna Carta of 1215 AD.
Most scientists and science educators work for tax supported institutions. They are eager to help government raise more money for them and they love being seen as “saving the planet.”
Google “Two Minute Conservative” for clarity.
They want the chilling affect, to further quiet opponents. It is how they operate.
I have come to the conclusion that going to court would be a great thing for this issue, let them have to explain how they take the data and massage it to get their results,going back and changing old climate data and completely ignoring all the satellite data that blows this climate BS right out of the water.
going to court would end this fraud once and for all
This is NOT how true science is handled. This is however exactly how Religion handles those who do not conform. At least the more radical religions do so today. In science, you pose a hypothesis, then you go about trying to DISPROVE you very own hypothesis. You try very hard to cover all bases, leaving no objection unanswered. Then you put it out for peer review once you think you’ve covered all bases and have a provable hypothesis, expecting and welcoming points that you have to defend against. In the end you never have “consensus”, you have acceptance that your hypothesis has not bee disproved, nothing more. Knowing that at some time in the near or distant future, as science advances, your hypothesis may be shown to be in error, or it may still hold up. In religion however, you can bypass all of that, and go straight to acceptance based on faith. You claim and demand consensus, even overwhelming evidence can not sway you, and anyone who questions you is call a denier and cast out. You are vilified, ostracized, marginalized if you do not conform. Your funding is cut, your reputation is destroyed, and you are punished as a denier. This is exactly how the global warming alarmists operate. It is a religion, it is not science!
The way to do it is to sue them for commercial defamation and interference, with a (triple damages) RICO count. Slam dunk.