May free speech reign and scientific inquiry prevail

By |2016-07-04T16:49:05+00:00July 4th, 2016|CFACT Insights|92 Comments

oldstarchamber23Throughout the past four years, climate change activists have been secretly coordinating with one another regarding ways to prosecute individuals, organizations, and companies that are their ideological foes. They met to develop a strategy to use RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act), which was intended to provide stronger weapons for prosecuting organized crime, against those who speak out against the Obama Administration’s war on fossil fuels.

More recently, the activists, including Naomi Oreskes and Bill mckibbMcKibben, have coordinated with Attorneys General (AG) culminating with a March 29 press conference, led by New York AG Eric Schneiderman and joined by former Vice President Al Gore. There the “unprecedented coalition”—as Schneiderman’s press release called it—was announced: the newly formed AGs for Clean Power. Though “vague” on their specific plans, 17 AGs (16 Democrats and 1 Independent) have, as the Huffington Post reported: “committed to pursuing an all-levers approach” to, as Gore said: “hold to account those commercial interests that have been, according to the best available evidence, deceiving the American people, communicating in a fraudulent way.”

excliExxonMobil has been the first and most obvious target. While the RICO Act is federal legislation passed in 1970, more than two dozen states have “Baby RICO” laws—which are, according to, “broader than the federal version.” 

Four different investigations claiming that Exxon conspired to cover up its understanding of climate science have been launched. Schneiderman was the first. Last November, he issued a subpoena demanding: “that ExxonMobil Corporation give investigators documents spanning four decades of research findings and communications about climate change.”

In January, the Los Angeles Times announced: “California Atty. Gen. Kamala D. Harris is investigating whether Exxon Mobil Corp. repeatedly lied to the public and its shareholders about the risk to its business from climate change—and whether such actions could amount to securities fraud and violations of environmental laws.” On April 19, Massachusetts AG Maura Healey opened an investigation to seek “information regarding whether Exxon may have misled consumers and/or investors with respect to the impact of fossil fuels on climate change, and climate change-driven risks to Exxon’s business.”

Just days after the March 29 press conference, Virgin Islands’ AG virginsClaude Walker, in his demand for records, became the first to cite the racketeering law to “probe Exxon over its longtime denial of climate change and its products’ role in it.” Additionally, he listed roughly 100 academic institutions and free market think tanks in his subpoena. The National Review reports that Walker promised a “transformational” use of his prosecutorial powers in the global-warming crusade. Separately, Walker also subpoenaed records from the respected Washington DC think tank, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI).

Schneiderman and Healey have also requested records from research and advocacy groups. Harris, who is running for the Senate seat to be vacated by retiring Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), “isn’t expected to do much in terms of investigating Exxon,” according to the Daily Caller.

The Free Beacon references “internal documents” stating that the goals of the larger campaign are:

  • “delegitimize [ExxonMobil] as a political actor,”
  • “force officials to disassociate themselves from Exxon,”
  • “drive divestment from Exxon,” and
  • “to drive Exxon & climate into center of 2016 election.”

`The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) adds:

  • “to establish in the public’s mind that Exxon is a corrupt institution that has pushed humanity (and all creation) toward climate chaos and grave harm.”

climateiediotsDespite the attacks on Exxon, WSJ quotes Lee Wasserman, director of the Rockefeller Family Fund—one of the foundations behind the crusade—as saying: “It’s not really about Exxon.” Instead: “It’s about helping the larger public understand the urgencies of finding climate solutions.”

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), who has long advocated that the Department of Justice (DOJ) investigate whether Exxon and other fossil fuel companies violated the RICO statute by disputing the role of fossil fuel burning in global warming, at a recent hearing, asked Attorney General Loretta Lynch if she’d considered using RICO against fossil fuel companies. She replied: “This matter has been discussed. We have received information about it and have referred it to the FBI to consider whether or not it meets the criteria for which we could take action on.”

The WSJ reports: “The new legal theory has yet to gain momentum within the Justice Department, according to officials familiar with internal discussions. But after prodding by lawmakers, the Federal Bureau of Investigation is conducting a preliminary review.”

Even legal scholars, such as Columbia Law School professor Merritt foxB. Fox, who, according to Reuters, agrees with the importance of climate change, expressed skepticism about the legal strategy of the prosecutors: “The market was well supplied with information about climate change from a variety of sources.” Reuters adds: “investors get information on climate change from many sources and Exxon would probably not be able to alter the ‘total mix’ of publically available information.”

Similarly, Pat Parenteau, a professor of environmental law at the Vermont Law School, is quoted by “Hopefully there is something more than unsubstantiated suspicion to support this.”  Parenteau explains: “The most serious question is whether the attorney general [Walker] has any basis to suspect that Exxon has engaged in activities that violate the statutes about obtaining money by false pretense and fraud.”

uhlIn the WSJ, David Uhlmann, a University of Michigan law professor and former federal crimes prosecutor, expressed concern regarding the ability to establish “clear culpability for global warming.” The reporting says: “Millions of individuals contribute with their use of fossil fuels, while national governments have done little despite knowing the risks.” Uhlmann states: “Exxon should have been far more forthright about the risks associated with climate change, but all of us are culpable for our collective failure to change.”

Then there are the opponents. The WSJ points out: “Both sides see this as a pivotal moment in a growing campaign by environmentalists to deploy a legal strategy used against tobacco companies in the 1990s by arguing that oil companies have long hidden what they know about climate change.”

Late last month, five Republican Senators sent a letter to Lynch demanding that: “the DOJ immediately cease its ongoing use of law enforcement to stifle private debate on one of the most controversial issues of our time—climate change.”

William Perry Pendley, whose group, the Mountain States Legal Foundation, is named in Walker’s subpoena, told me the effort by environmental groups is “an abuse of power that we haven’t seen in this country since Woodrow Wilson.” His foundation, according to the Washington Times, has “long acknowledged that Exxon is one of its many funders.”

Pendley says: “accepting funding from Exxon and disagreeing with Greenpeace on the causes and extent of climate change are not crimes. What we are accused of saying is: ‘Maybe there isn’t global warming, maybe it’s not caused by man, and maybe your solution won’t work. It will be too expensive and drive us into poverty.’”

Ronald Bailey, science correspondent for the Reason Foundation—usaalso named in Walker’s subpoena—said, according to the Washington Times: “These subpoenas are a huge step in using courts to silence people who hold views that differ from those of powerful government officials.”

CEI, the organization singled out for Walker’s separate subpoena, issued the following statement from president Ken Lassman: “All Americans have the right to support causes they believe in, and the CEI subpoena is an abuse of the legal system and an effort to intimidate and silence individuals who disagree with certain attorneys general on the climate debate. Disagreeing with a government official is not a crime; abusing government power to take away Americans’ rights is.”

I know this to be true as my organization, though not featured on Walker’s list, is still a victim. We had some essential funding in place that would have allowed us to continue for months without extreme financial stress. However the DC policy shop that was to provide the support for our efforts,pulled its support as a result of the AG’s campaign.

hustleI was told that the funding was approved, but that when I wrote my April 25 column on the film Climate Hustle—which questions the science behind the politically correct narrative of man-made catastrophic climate change—the board got cold feet because they, too, are one of the organizations on the list. At first, I wanted to quit, as without the funding I couldn’t continue. But then, I got mad. I realized that if I stopped doing what I do, these AGs would win—which is their goal. Indirectly, they attempted to silence me. I am grateful for individuals and companies who believe in my work and who have stepped up to fill the funding gap—at least for a few months.

Those of us who’ve been attacked are not the only ones who saw the inquisflaw of the AG’s crusade. Exxon and CEI have filed lawsuits against the accusers. Exxon claimed that the subpoenas “violated constitutional amendments on free speech, unreasonable search and seizure and equal protection.” As a result, last week, Walker withdrew his subpoenas and Healey, reports the Daily Caller, has “agreed to an abeyance of the subpoena, meaning her office won’t enforce the subpoena until all legal appeals are exhausted, which may take a couple of years.”

In a big victory for free speech, The Hill states: “The withdrawal closes a major chapter in the drive by liberals and environmentalists to punish Exxon over allegations that it knew decades ago that fossil fuels were causing climate change but denied it publicly.”

In response to the “retreat,” Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX), Chairman of the House Committee on Science and Technology, said it “confirms what my committee has known all along—these legal actions were conceived and driven by environmental groups with an extreme political agenda and no actual regard for the law.” His statement added: “Companies, nonprofit organizations, and scientists deserve the ability to pursue research free from intimidation and threat of prosecution.”

The Heartland Institute, for which I serve as an “expert” on energy issues, is also on the “list.” Its president, Joe Bast, told me: “Because there is a lively debate over the causes and consequences of climate change, this litigation has First Amendment implications.” He added: “It is not the possibility of harm to the public that led the AGs and DOJ to decide to enter into a wickedly complicated scientific debate, but the possibility of harm to the current administration in the White House. Their objective is to silence opposition by ExxonMobil and CEI (and other nonprofit organizations similar to CEI) to this administration’s draconian energy policies.”

Where these attacks on free speech go next remains to be seen. But as Texas AG Ken Paxton said in response to Walker’s withdrawal: “In America, we have the freedom to disagree, and we do not legally prosecute people just because their opinion is different from ours.”

May free speech reign and scientific inquiry prevail. True science welcomes a challenge because it can stand up to it—while political correctness must silence challenge.


  1. Brin Jenkins July 5, 2016 at 6:08 AM

    The last few words are so true. Convince us with scientific argument that there is need to really be concerned on the C02 theory, and not whip up fear with illogical argument. Cue Demon Dano to enter stage left.

    • Brin Jenkins July 5, 2016 at 2:15 PM

      Why do you waste time if you are unable to explain how C02 causes heating.? I feel sure others who you have not yet impressed might like to hear!

    • Isandhlwana79 July 6, 2016 at 10:49 AM

      Dano is an AGW kook. he claims several degrees and having been published in several publications. He offers no prove of his claims. Similar to his claims of AGW, no proof. He is a FRAUD.

      • Brin Jenkins July 6, 2016 at 12:48 PM

        And on cue,

      • Dano2 July 6, 2016 at 6:33 PM

        Here you are, bravely not telling the truth again. Aren’t you something?

        *pats head*



        • Isandhlwana79 July 6, 2016 at 7:39 PM

          You can’t dispute it, FRAUD.

          LMAO at the fool troll……hahahahahahha

          • Dano2 July 6, 2016 at 7:46 PM

            Still lacking bravery, still making up stuff.




            • Isandhlwana79 July 6, 2016 at 7:49 PM

              No, as usual, you have it the other way around. YOU made claims of degrees and being published and can’t supply proof. That makes YOU a FRAUD. Now, come back with some more of your sophomoric, inane comments.

              • Dano2 July 6, 2016 at 7:56 PM

                It doesn’t make me a fraud, it makes me wish to remain anonymous.

                Intelligent people get it. Half-wits get it.

                No word why you bumble on with this weak ploy. To cover up your ignorance?



                • Isandhlwana79 July 6, 2016 at 7:59 PM

                  Nice try, FRAUD. You are a loser who trolls climate sites. Everybody sees you for what you are, a troll who can’t even make a cogent case for AGW. The world laughs at you, FRAUD.
                  Until you show some proof of your credentials, you go down as a FRAUD. That simple. Case closed……..hahahahahhahaha

                  • Dano2 July 6, 2016 at 8:15 PM

                    Thanks, LOLO. Repeat your inanities and widdle fibs over and over.



                    • Isandhlwana79 July 6, 2016 at 8:19 PM


                      Sums you up.


                    • Dano2 July 6, 2016 at 8:26 PM

                      Indicators of high intelligence. Congratulations.

                      Or is that your mating call?

                      Hard to tell with these types, huh LOLO.



                    • Isandhlwana79 July 6, 2016 at 8:27 PM

                      Poor Dano the loser.
                      AGW wannabe expert……..hahahahhaha
                      L O S E R
                      F R A U D

                    • Dano2 July 6, 2016 at 9:27 PM

                      LoInfo mating calls don’t amuse me, what else do you have to amuse me?



                    • Isandhlwana79 July 6, 2016 at 9:55 PM

                      What’s the matter Dano? Nothing witty to come back with? You keep showing how shallow your intellect is with every post you make and yet you claim to be published?? yeah, right…..LMAO!!
                      Dano the FRAUD.

                    • Dano2 July 6, 2016 at 9:57 PM

                      That LoInfo mating call didn’t amuse me either, LOLO. You keep repeating the same hillbilly yahoo to no effect.



                    • Isandhlwana79 July 6, 2016 at 9:59 PM

                      Loser…….LMAO at the FRAUD

                    • Dano2 July 6, 2016 at 10:21 PM

                      One-note LOLO regales us with its high-functioning mating call.



                    • Isandhlwana79 July 6, 2016 at 10:32 PM

                      Dano the loser FRAUD showing us he is a kook.
                      LMAO hahahahahahhahahahahahahahha

                    • Brin Jenkins July 7, 2016 at 1:47 AM

                      It’s time to show the doubters your irrevocable truth and explain the C02 mechanism, failure to publish this shows your lack of understanding. It might also convince some that your claim to a degree is truthful.

                    • Dano2 July 7, 2016 at 8:51 AM

                      Poor addled Brin. I hope you find good feels.



                    • Isandhlwana79 July 7, 2016 at 9:40 AM

                      The fact that you can’t answer his question shows you for what you are, a FRAUD

                      You are a kook trolling climate sites adding nothing to the AGW case.

                    • Dano2 July 7, 2016 at 11:00 AM

                      LoInfo LOLO, poor addled brin has had his question answered many, many, many, many times. He is either too addled, or something else, to acknowledge it.

                      More weak flailing from our LOLO.



                    • Isandhlwana79 July 7, 2016 at 11:21 AM

                      If he had the question answered it was never by YOU. You are a kook and a troll offering nothing to support AGW. THAT is a fact!
                      YOU are a FRAUD

                    • Dano2 July 7, 2016 at 12:55 PM

                      Buffoontastic flail: If he had the question answered it was never by YOU

                      More of the one-note whiny-whine.

                      I think that note is B flat.



                    • Isandhlwana79 July 7, 2016 at 1:01 PM

                      You again show no proof you answered ANYTHING of substance. All you have are the sophomoric insults of a child. Yet you want us to accept that you’ve been published? Really!? Amazing!

                      If you were as accomplished as you claimed you’d have no fear of showing it. Instead you offer nothing but childish insults in response. You also must suffer from OCD. Why? Your inane ‘best’ garbage at the end of your posts is a ‘tell’. You are as shallow as they come. OH! I may add that you are a FRAUD.

                      One more thing. You have exposed yourself as a homosexual. I won’t reveal how I know this……LMAO

                    • Dano2 July 7, 2016 at 1:24 PM

                      Is this LOLO babble a request for the evidence that I’ve answered poor hapless Brin’s little quershin?

                      No babbling, deflecting, bumbling, buffooning: are you asking for evidence?



                    • Isandhlwana79 July 7, 2016 at 1:29 PM

                      You have nothing else, child?
                      LMAO at the homosexual fool.

                    • Dano2 July 7, 2016 at 2:59 PM

                      Thanks, LOLO, you helped a lot with your one-note B♭.

                      You’re crushing it lately. Awesome.



                    • Isandhlwana79 July 7, 2016 at 3:46 PM

                      You have nothing as usual. You are right, I AM crushing YOU.



                    • Dano2 July 7, 2016 at 3:56 PM

                      LOLO is bringin its A-game, totes, yo! In its one-note B♭. How long before everyone thinks that note done gone sour?



                    • Isandhlwana79 July 7, 2016 at 4:00 PM

                      The child can’t think of anything humorous. Figures.
                      Dano, the homosexual, plagued with OCD. Why should anyone pay attention to your ramblings? You, after all, know NOTHING about AGW.

                    • Dano2 July 7, 2016 at 4:03 PM

                      LOLO, your mating call sounds sour. Maybe that’s why its not working. Try something new rather than your one-note B♭.



                    • Isandhlwana79 July 7, 2016 at 4:05 PM

                      Yet you keep responding. I find it amusing. You are a FRAUD. You should try listening to someone 10 times smarter than you. Here it is:

                    • Dano2 July 7, 2016 at 7:30 PM

                      LOLO tries shiny objects with its mating call now. Cute!



                    • Isandhlwana79 July 7, 2016 at 7:39 PM

                      I knew you would have nothing intelligent to reply with. It shows without a doubt that you have zero understanding of climate dynamics. It also shows you to be the troll you are and a kook.
                      Dano the homo strikes out again!

                    • Dano2 July 7, 2016 at 7:41 PM

                      LOLO regales everybuddy with its single-note plaint! Go you!



                    • Isandhlwana79 July 7, 2016 at 7:43 PM

                      You can’t refute anything that Dr. Lindzen said? Why not? You can’t because you don’t have the knowledge to do so. You are simply a loser. Kook and fraud on top of it.

                    • Dano2 July 7, 2016 at 7:48 PM

                      LOLO has a little sads that Dano wanted to read something at a link to a science site, not watch a random YouTubew video by a fossil fool shill!

                      Awh! Here’s a hankie, little one-note. There, there.



                    • Isandhlwana79 July 7, 2016 at 7:50 PM

                      Poor stupid Dano can’t reply with anything remotely intelligent. Why? Limited intellect, that’s why. You have shown the world how shallow you are. Degrees? Published? All lies and the world sees it. You lose again, FRAUD.

                      Read this and give it your best shot and not some inane childish remark. But then again, the science may be way past your limited ability to comprehend:


                      That is a peer-reviewed paper.

                    • Dano2 July 7, 2016 at 7:56 PM

                      Poor one-note can’t reply with anything not LoInfo. Or a disinformation site. It’s the best denialists can do: fossil fool shills and disinformation sites. It’s because there’s no science to support their beliefs or validate their self-identities.

                      Here’s a hankie. There, there little B♭ one-note.



                    • Isandhlwana79 July 7, 2016 at 7:58 PM

                      That was a peer-reviewed paper and you can’t critique it? Figures.
                      Shallow Dano for the world to see.
                      You have your head so far up your rear you can’t tell up from down.
                      LMAO at the FRAUD

                    • Dano2 July 7, 2016 at 10:50 PM

                      Little one-note gives us a paper from another discredited fossil fool shill. Standard fare.

                      Nonetheless, you’ve linked to a paper about finding a little more TSI variability while using a rural surface temp dataset. Good for you!

                      Were you told by someone that this paper something something? This paper does nothing to overturn two centuries of physics, sorry. Man heats the earth via GHG emissions. You can’t make that go away. Man is very likely responsible for all of the warming since 1950. This paper doesn’t change that, thanks!



                    • Isandhlwana79 July 7, 2016 at 10:58 PM

                      Man heats the Earth in your imagination and that is a fact. You can’t prove any of the garbage you spout. I’d trust Dr.Soon over a kook like you any day. You have no clue how the climate behaves.
                      Dano the FRAUD fails again.

                    • Dano2 July 7, 2016 at 11:11 PM

                      Two centuries of science, one-note. You are wrong. Of course.



                    • Isandhlwana79 July 8, 2016 at 8:39 AM

                      Two centuries of WHAT science, you fool. There is NO evidence that CO2 is doing ANYTHING to the climate and you can’t show that it does! THAT is a a FACT!
                      A fact you can’t accept. It takes more than just showing a physical property of a trace gas to proving it DRIVES climate change. YOU can’t show that and neither can ANYONE else on the planet. No matter how many scientists agree with you, none of them have submitted a paper PROVING CO2 DRIVES climate change. NONE, let me repeat for your pea-brain, N O N E ! Got that clown? Take your childish BS somewhere else. YOU LOSE HERE !!!!

                    • Dano2 July 8, 2016 at 12:13 PM

                      you fool. There is NO evidence that CO2 is doing ANYTHING to the climate and you can’t show that it does! THAT is a a FACT!
                      YOU can’t show that and neither can ANYONE else on the planet. No matter how many scientists agree with you, none of them have submitted a paper PROVING CO2 DRIVES climate change. NONE, let me repeat for your pea-brain, N O N E ! Got that clown

                      High-functioning argumentation aside,

                      Everyone with a basic science education can show. Educate yourself. I helped you get started educating yourself upthread, here. Good luck!



                    • Isandhlwana79 July 8, 2016 at 12:14 PM

                      Why go to your disinformation sites?
                      See two can play that game.

                    • Dano2 July 8, 2016 at 12:15 PM

                      Choose to educate yourself or remain comically ignorant. Your choice.

                      Remaining ignorant means more amusement for me.



                    • Isandhlwana79 July 8, 2016 at 12:17 PM

                      Oh I’ve read a LOT on the subject. Enough to see you are a clown with nothing to support your case. Try Salby, Curry, Spencer, Soon, Lindzen, Berry and hundreds of others.

                    • Dano2 July 8, 2016 at 12:21 PM

                      The uneducated references the usual suspects and the fossil fool shills. But no papers, evidence, equations, standard texts, NewPhysics, nothing. Nada. Nil. Null set. Nichts. Zip. Zero. Zilch. Jack. Bupkis. Squat. Diddly.

                      That amuses me too. Your amusement is quite satisfactory, thanks!



                    • Isandhlwana79 July 8, 2016 at 12:23 PM

                      The Null Hypothesis on climate change stands until you can show otherwise. You can’t.

                      All you have are childish remarks. You really aren’t that bright.

                    • Dano2 July 8, 2016 at 12:35 PM

                      The Null Hypothesis on climate change


                      Another embarrassing flail.

                      Null hypothesis on AGW. You can’t even tell anyone what it is.




                    • Isandhlwana79 July 8, 2016 at 12:14 PM

                      A FACT

                    • Dano2 July 8, 2016 at 12:16 PM

                      Nincompoopery and prancing about in all caps is totes amusing for me. Please proceed! I’m LOLzing!



                    • Isandhlwana79 July 8, 2016 at 12:18 PM

                      Good. You are a clown full of yourself. Climate change has proven one thing, you are a kook.
                      LMAO at the FRAUD

                    • Dano2 July 8, 2016 at 12:23 PM

                      One-note LOLO can’t refute squat.

                      That amuses me. Do continue with your show.



                    • Isandhlwana79 July 8, 2016 at 12:24 PM

                      You can’t prove squat. Except that you are a Homo with OCD

                    • Dano2 July 8, 2016 at 12:32 PM

                      I already did.

                      Your clowning and buffooning and weak name-calling to make it go away gives you away.

                      You can’t hide the fact you are embarrassed.



                    • Dano2 July 8, 2016 at 12:05 PM

                      Poor hapless one-note. Stuck in the 17th Century. Must be hard to go thru life like that.

                      Two centuries of physics and chemistry that CO2 keeps them thar earf from bein an ice ball:

                      Fourier, J.B.J. 1827. On the Temperatures of the Terrestrial Sphere and Interplanetary Space. Memoires de l’Academie Royale de Science 7: 569-604.

                      Tyndall, J. 1861. On the absorption and radiation of heat by gasses and vapours, and on the physical connection of radiation, absorption, and conduction. Philosophical Magazine Series 4, 22: 169-194, 273-285.

                      Arrhenius, S. 1896. The influence of the carbonic acid in the air upon the temperature of the ground. Philosophical Magazine, Series 5, 41: 237-276.

                      Chamberlin, T.C. 1897. A group of hypotheses bearing on climatic changes. Journal of Geology 5: 653-683.

                      Chamberlin, T.C. 1898. The influence of great epochs of limestone formation upon the constitution of the atmosphere. Journal of Geology 6: 609-621.

                      Chamberlin, T.C. 1899. An attempt to frame a working hypothesis of the cause of glacial periods on an atmospheric basis. Journal of Geology 7: 545-584, 667-685, 751-787.

                      Callendar, G.S. 1938. The artificial production of carbon dioxide and its influence on temperature. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 64: 223-237.

                      Callendar, G.S. 1949. Can carbon dioxide influence climate? Weather 4: 310-314.

                      Plass, G.N. 1956a. Effect of carbon dioxide variations on climate. American Journal of Physics 24: 376-387.

                      Plass, G.N. 1956b. The influence of the 15-micron carbon dioxide band on the atmospheric infrared cooling rate. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 82: 310-324.

                      Plass, G.N. 1956c. The carbon dioxide theory of climatic change. Tellus 8: 140-154.

                      Revelle, R. and Suess, H.E. 1957. Carbon dioxide exchange between atmosphere and ocean and the question of an increase of atmospheric CO2 during the past decades. Tellus 9: 18-27.

                      Callendar, G.S. 1958. On the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Tellus 10: 243-248.

                      Callendar, G.S. 1961. Temperature fluctuations and trends over the earth. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 87: 1-12.

                      Plass, G.N. 1961. The influence of infrared absorptive molecules on the climate. Annals of the New York Academy of Science 95: 61-71.

                      Collection of the science that addressed the Detection and Attribution problem and empirically determined that the increase in CO2 is from man, and that these emissions warm the earth:


                      The history of it all, in one place, with many links for verification and education:


                      You have nothing to refute this fact. Nada. Nil. Null set. Nichts. Zip. Zero. Zilch. Jack. Bupkis. Squat. Diddly.



                    • Isandhlwana79 July 8, 2016 at 12:12 PM

                      None of that proves CO2 does anything PERIOD
                      You lose as usual.

                    • Dano2 July 8, 2016 at 12:14 PM

                      Sure it does.

                      I win because I’m amusing myself with your embarrassing displays of ignorance, lack of education, and arrogant nincompoopery.



                    • Isandhlwana79 July 8, 2016 at 12:16 PM

                      Your ignorance is only exceeded by your arrogance. Too many credentialed (much more than your lameass) dispute what you post.
                      THAT IS A FACT !!!

                    • Dano2 July 8, 2016 at 12:18 PM

                      Ululating and prancing about while hand-flapping is amusing for me.

                      Continue amusing me in this manner. It is very satisfactory amusement.



                    • Isandhlwana79 July 8, 2016 at 12:19 PM

                      Again, you have nothing to dispute what I said. I laugh at your stupidity.

                    • Dano2 July 8, 2016 at 12:25 PM

                      You flounce and ululate and clown to make your embarrassment go away. Nothing you said has merit or value outside of the context of your trying to hide your embarrassment. .



                    • Isandhlwana79 July 8, 2016 at 12:29 PM

                      The only embarrassment I may have is interacting with an idiot like you. We are done.

                      I have shown the world what a clown you are, a FRAUD too.

                      Now, come back with your usual childish, sophomoric insults. They show you for the shallow troll you are.

                      Don’t worry, I won’t respond to you any more but every time you post on one of these sites, I’ll let others know you are a liar,troll and FRAUD.

                    • Dano2 July 8, 2016 at 12:45 PM

                      Your laughable assertion, Man heats the Earth in your imagination and that is a fact. You can’t prove any of [it], was refuted.

                      Your embarrassing display of unhinged deflections gives you away.

                      Everyone can tell you are embarrassed and are trying to deflect from your embarrassment at being caught out in such a laughable assertion. All cons ululate and whine like this to deflect. Standard fare. Everyone has seen cons do this a million times.



      • Dale July 7, 2016 at 7:20 PM

        It seems that you are just wasting your time with this character. I discovered this a long time ago. Perhaps if he is simply ignored, like his credibility, he will soon disappear.

        • Isandhlwana79 July 7, 2016 at 7:41 PM

          I know but his type deserves all the scorn we can heap upon him. He trolls these sites offering nothing but childish comments. The funny thing is that he claims to have several degrees and to have been published in various publications. It is obvious that he’s a liar and fraud.

        • Isandhlwana79 July 8, 2016 at 5:25 PM

          Dale, I am now taking your advice. I have the clown blocked so I don’t see any of his inane garbage. He is a sad little man desperate for conversation.

    • J T July 6, 2016 at 4:30 PM

      I think of him as more douchebag than demon.

      • Isandhlwana79 July 6, 2016 at 5:05 PM

        Hit that one square on the head !!

    • Duane L Petersen July 6, 2016 at 5:07 PM

      Greenhouse gases make up about 5% most of the other 95% is H2O vapor of the atmosphere of that 5% CO2 makes up less then 3% and of that 3% man made CO2 makes up 5% as the other 97% of the CO2 comes from natural occurring sources. The amount of BS that is being put out by these warmingests is amazing.

  2. Dano2 July 5, 2016 at 12:08 PM

    regarding ways to prosecute individuals, organizations, and companies that are their ideological foes.

    Cool story, bro broette.



  3. Phil Esposito July 6, 2016 at 4:29 PM

    Damn this country is going down hill fast. Can’t wait for the elephant-eared monkey to get out of office and Trump to get in. Maybe we’ll restore some sanity to this country.

  4. Duane L Petersen July 6, 2016 at 4:58 PM

    Why shouldn’t the rest of the population sue these AGs because the models have not even came close to being right and we have spent billions of dollars on this fraud. That sounds a lot more like a RECO case then an argument over what some company said and if the GW has not happened yet why on earth should anyone, except the fraudsters of AGW Mafia be sued because we can’t see into the future and we don’t know if GW is going to happen or not as it has not so far.

  5. BenDoubleCrossed July 6, 2016 at 5:02 PM

    Just remember it was Fred Flintstone’s fleet of hummers that caused the tropical age of the dinosaurs.

  6. Peter Brown July 6, 2016 at 5:04 PM

    My suggestion to get the point across to people that fossil fuel use is not evil is that all the coal (and oil) fired power station in the USA should coordinate a planned two hour maintenance shutdown – all at the same time. I suggest that 8.00 a.m. to 10.00 a.m. Washington time would be appropriate. And maybe another at 8.00 a.m. to 10.00 a.m. California time. It would help people realise that they need and value fossil fuels and that companies that produce, sell and use fossil fuels are essential.

    • BenDoubleCrossed July 6, 2016 at 5:19 PM

      Great idea. And I believe a lot of coal miners would like to tell these wacko kuku birds that poverty is the worst form of pollution.

    • wally12 July 6, 2016 at 11:56 PM

      @Peter Brown: While a shut down would get everyone’s attention, it must not be done. To do so would only backfire since the US public would not take being left without electricity, heat or air conditioning. Thus,the public would become believers of AGW propaganda and the fossil fuel industry would be blamed.

    • ChuckS123 July 10, 2016 at 3:39 PM

      Hey liberals – you need coal power plants to grow your marijuana and charge your electric cars and smart phones.

  7. marykaybarton July 6, 2016 at 7:36 PM

    New York Attorney General Schneiderman, and NY Governor Cuomo’s environmental hypocrisy is astounding! Cuomo & Schneiderman are supporting “dimming the lights” in New York City to help stop migrating birds from becoming disoriented and crashing into buildings. Yet simultaneously, Cuomo & Schneiderman are pushing for many more giant bird-chopping wind turbines – with 625+ foot-high blinking red lights, along the shores of Lake Ontario (a major migratory bird flyway), & across rural New York State.

    Hammering Wind Industry Myths: The In-A-Nutshell Version

    ‘Clean’ Power Plan Problem – Wind Power Destruction in New York State:

    Industrial Wind vs. Rural America, Electricity Markets:

  8. Isandhlwana79 July 8, 2016 at 2:58 PM

    Dano, the kook, thinks he understands climate change. He doesn’t. He has no clue. He is just a sad little man trolling climate sites offering no proof of his scam.
    LMAO at Dano the FRAUD!!

  9. Isandhlwana79 July 8, 2016 at 3:40 PM

    Dano, the FRAUD, is desperate for conversation. Don’t feed him. Ignore and flag instead. He deserves nothing less.
    LMAO at the FRAUD

    • Dano2 July 8, 2016 at 3:43 PM

      LOLO’s laughable assertion, Man heats the Earth in your imagination and that is a fact. You can’t prove any of [it], was refuted.

      That’s the reason for the brave tactics here – it’s hilarity was exposed.



  10. Isandhlwana79 July 8, 2016 at 3:43 PM

    Did somebody say something? The kook has been blocked.
    LMAO at the FRAUD.

  11. Isandhlwana79 July 8, 2016 at 9:14 PM

    There is no significant relationship between CO2 rising and temperatures, a null hypothesis.

Comments are closed.