Democratic AGs, climate change groups colluded on prosecuting dissenters, emails show

““We call on these AGs to immediately halt their investigation and lay out for the public the full extent of this collusion, producing all records or information provided them in briefings or other work with the outside activists, including those they are trying to keep secret through a Common Interest Agreement.”

From the Washington Times:

Screen Shot 2016-04-18 at 8.31.06 AM

3 thoughts on “Democratic AGs, climate change groups colluded on prosecuting dissenters, emails show”

  1. Thank you for exposing four years of planning to misuse the legal system to link fossil fuel firms and other opponents of AGW consensus to fraud and even racketeering, the trademark of the AGW movement itself!

  2. Wikipedia defines a racket as: A racket is a service that is fraudulently offered to solve a problem, such as for a problem that does not actually exist, that will not be put into effect, or that would not otherwise exist if the racket did not exist. Conducting a racket is racketeering. Particularly, the potential problem may be caused by the same party that offers to solve it, although that fact may be concealed, with the specific intent to engender continual patronage for this party.

    Clearly the academics (many of whom are not physical scientists) missed their target. The IPCC fits perfectly the definition of a racket and could be pursued under RICO. Though I don’t think the courts are qualified to settle this or any science.

  3. I concur with what Ron C. stated and would like to add that if a RICO investigation is started it will have such far reaching ramifications as to be international in scope.
    Such an investigation would rock the pseudo-science global change industry to its core as its pronouncements and publications are subjected to the standards required for “legal evidence”. When found lacking the funding will dry up as those who have been calling for accountability will finally have leverage provided by the court system sufficient to ~force~ accountability.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.