Sunday, April 10, 2016

Yucky tasting medicine: You can't do that - only us - sez CEI

Sou | 3:34 PM Go to the first of 59 comments. Add a comment
At WUWT today, Eric Worrall has written how the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) is getting a taste of its own medicine (archived here). The CEI is complaining that they've been issued with a subpoena to produce twenty years of emails and other documents relating to their climate science denial campaigns. You might have heard of CEI, they are the same mob who usually appear at WUWT boasting how they asked for decades of emails from other people. Now the tables have turned and CEI doesn't like it.

In a complete about face, the CEI is now claiming that letting people know what is said in emails is a violation of freedom of speech! The article claims it to be part of "an intimidation campaign to criminalize speech and research on the climate debate". Wow! (Is that why Chris Horner and the CEI spend almost all their time suing people for emails - to intimidate and stop research on climate?)

Here are just a few of the zillions of previous articles from WUWT about CEI and its email harassment campaigns:
It's what CEI does. Why are they complaining?

It's all about Exxon

The subpoena relates to an investigation of Exxon as you've probably guessed. The paras below are from the introductory attachment to the subpoena, on the CEI website:
ExxonMobil is suspected to have engaged in, or be engaging in, conduct constituting a  civil violation of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 14 V.I.C. § 605, by  having engaged or engaging in conduct misrepresenting its knowledge of the likelihood that its  products and activities have contributed and are continuing to contribute to Climate Change in  order to defraud the Government of the United States Virgin Islands ("the Government") and  consumers in the Virgin Islands, in violation of 14 V.I.C.§ 834 (prohibiting obtaining money by  false pretenses) and 14 V.I.C. § 551 (prohibiting conspiracy to obtain money by false pretenses).

In relation to the Government's investigation of the above matter, YOU ARE HEREBY DIRECTED, by the authority granted to the Attorney General of the United States Virgin Islands  ("USVI"), pursuant to the provisions of 14 V.I.C. § 612, to produce and deliver the documents  responsive to the inquiries set forth herein, on or before April 30, 2016, directed to the attention  of Attorney General Claude Earl Walker, Esq.  

This is what CEI has to provide:
  1. All Documents and Communications sent to or received from ExxonMobil, or third parties acting on behalf of ExxonMobil, concerning Climate Change, including strategies to address Climate Change or impact public views on Climate Change. 
  2. All Documents and Communications concerning the likelihood that or extent to which any of the products sold by or activities carried out by ExxonMobil directly or indirectly impact Climate Change. 
  3. All Documents and Communications reflecting or concerning studies, research, reviews, events, or publications funded by ExxonMobil (in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, including through Donors Trust or Donors Capital Fund or other third parties acting on behalf of ExxonMobil) concerning carbon dioxide or concerning the likelihood, certainty, uncertainty, scope, causes, or impacts of Climate Change. 
  4. All public statements You have drafted, reviewed, edited, made, or published on behalf of or in connection with efforts directed, assisted, or funded by ExxonMobil (in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, including through Donors Trust or Donors Capital Fund or other third parties acting on behalf of ExxonMobil), including but not limited to advertisements, op-eds, letters to the editor, speeches, and publications, concerning Climate Change. In Your Response to this Request include any Communications with ExxonMobil concerning any of the materials responsive to this Request. 
  5. All Documents and Communications concerning any potential impacts on ExxonMobil's sales, revenue, or business caused by Climate Change itself, by public policies responding to Climate Change (including any legislation or regulation concerning Climate Change), or by public perceptions of Climate Change. 
  6. All Documents concerning Climate Change published by You that were directed, drafted, prepared, reviewed, edited, approved, or funded by ExxonMobil (in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, including through Donors Trust or Donors Capital Fund or other third parties acting on behalf of ExxonMobil), and all Communications about such Documents. 
  7. All Documents reflecting or concerning meetings with or including ExxonMobil and/or third parties acting on behalf of ExxonMobil concerning Climate Change, including but not limited to meetings discussing or presenting: strategies, plans, or activities to address Climate Change; strategies, plans, or activities to impact public views on Climate Change; the likelihood that or extent to which carbon dioxide, methane, oil and gas extraction or use, or any of the products sold or activities carried out by ExxonMobil impact Climate Change directly or indirectly; the accuracy or credibility of research or researchers examining Climate Change; or the accuracy or credibility of models or assessments of the likelihood, certainty, uncertainty, scope, causes, or impacts of Climate Change. 
  8. All Documents and Communications concerning or reflecting ExxonMobil's activities using, working with, or funding third parties (including Donors Trust or Donors Capital Fund), or its strategies or plans to do so, to disseminate information or opinions concerning Climate Change. 
  9. Documents sufficient to identify the amount and date of all payments to You from ExxonMobil (directly or indirectly, including through Donors Trust or Donors Capital Fund or other third parties acting on behalf of ExxonMobil) to support work concerning Climate Change and the nature and dates of the work being funded by those payments. Please arrange payment records by year. 

Deniers don't want to know, of course.

From the WUWT comments

Science deniers at WUWT love it when the CEI asks for emails and documents, but the last thing they want to have to deal with are emails and documents that might show shady dealings of science disinformers. The tiny brains of deniers are getting tied up in knots of contorted double standards. On the one hand "truth will out" and emails are fair game - except when it comes to emails between deniers. Then it becomes "stifling free speech".

I haven't seen a single comment from anyone who is curious about what will be found among the emails of CEI, or even if there will be a single document that fits the above criteria. There seems to be a general consensus that CEI will have to put together lots and lots of documents, which implies that WUWT deniers accept that CEI was being paid by Exxon or someone related to spread disinformation about climate.

Shelly Marshall can't believe that anyone would turn the tables:
April 8, 2016 at 11:13 pm
This is so difficult to believe. It doesn’t seem real.

Shocked Citizen thinks that finding out what people said is squashing free speech:
April 9, 2016 at 7:15 am
The truth never needs protection from open and honest debate. If humans are having a material influence on climate through CO2 (I believe human influence is significantly smaller than natural influences), then that “fact” will eventually become evident–even in “unadjusted” data. The fact that free speech on this topic is being squashed is simply indicative of how weak the case for AGW really is (not to mention an affront to one of the most basic of all human rights).

Hugs points out that the USA is among the most litigious nations in the world. He or she says it's "pretty American tactics" but stops short of admitting it's pretty CEI tactics:
April 9, 2016 at 9:13 am
Easy. Actually, this is pretty American tactics. Subpoena, threaten with grave penalties provided by the local collection of established and unestablished law, coerce into co-operation.
Or use huge amounts of money into legal defence not needed elsewhere.
The system resembles justice. Yes, but only remotely. 

AB goes even further and calls it an "attack on civilization":
April 9, 2016 at 7:25 am
Appalling. It’s an attack on civilization. Not only do the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age not exist in their tiny demented minds but neither does the Age of Enlightenment. 

April 8, 2016 at 11:25 pm
They should be done for an abuse of the law. 

I don't recall NeedleFactory being outraged by any such requests from Lamar Smith or Christopher Monckton or Chris Horner.
April 9, 2016 at 10:40 am
Agreed. The 12+ pages of detailed instructions in Appendix A of the subpoena imposes a horrendous amount of work on CEI: documents cannot merely be “handed over”, they must be catalogued, scanned via OCR (Optical Character Recognition) so that they are searchable via computer, and provided with “Bates Numbers.” I imagine it might take thousands of man-hours to put the requested documents into the form demanded. A fishing expedition by the AG, with all the work done by those subpoenaed.

Mike McMillan points out that there may be suspicion of unlawful activities in CEI, though it might not be what he was thinking at the time:
April 8, 2016 at 11:57 pm
The government doesn’t have a legitimate interest in the lawful activities of a private outfit that doesn’t take taxpayer money. Congress could invite those AG’s in for a little chat, under oath, of course.
On the other hand, the govt has an obligation to investigate the activities of those multitudes on the climate gravy train. Over a hundred billion so far, might just be some prosecutable offenses in there.
First thing Cruz or Trump should do is appoint a whole passel of special prosecutors. (Then fire the Joint Chiefs and move EPA headquarters to Lenexa, Kansas.) 

Dudley Horscroft  is the first to draw a parallel with deniers requesting emails from scientists. He also assumes that there will be lots and lots of documents from CEI that relate to the Exxon investigation.
April 9, 2016 at 12:07 am
Is this not similar to the requests for Mr Mann to produce certain emails. As a non-US citizen, it appears that the procedure is the same. The difference is that Mr Mann and Mr Steyn are engaged in a legal bttle between the pair of them.
I cannot see what the CEI has to do with Exxon – did CEI advise Exxon, has any link been established between CEI and Exxon? Does Exxon operate in the colony of Virgin Islands? Does Exxon pay CEI to do anything? This commandment could be equally well addressed to the State of Kentucky. The causal link would appear to bea s good.
Yes, the commands appears to be totally off the page, but does this really amount to an attack on free speech?
To demand that 10 years worth of documents be transcribed into electronic text and all within a month appears to be totally ridiculous. 

Simon questions if Eric Worrall (who wrote the WUWT article) has double standards:
April 9, 2016 at 12:08 am
So where do you stand on the Lamar Smith abuse of power in his request for the NOAA emails? Seems to me you can draw parallels to McCarthyism there to. In fact he has been accused of it by more than just a few.

nicholas tesdorf  calls on McCarthy. I don't recall him criticising Lamar Smith or Cuccinelli or Chris Horner or CEI.
April 9, 2016 at 12:58 am
This is an attack not only on freedom of speech but also an attack on Science itself. This McCarthy style attack and abuse of power strike at the fundamental free exchange of ideas that Science represents and by which Science develops. 

Amatør1 makes an observation. I don't know if it relates to the propensity for people in the US to go to court, or if it's about a search for the facts of the matter:
April 9, 2016 at 1:38 am
Frankly, I don’t quite understand why this behaviour is called un-American.

Here's another one who equates this subpoena with censorship. CD in Wisconsin
April 9, 2016 at 8:37 am
Censorship through legal intimidation. The totalitarian element in climate alarmism rears its ugly head….something every freedom-loving individual in all nations where human rights are respected should comdemn. 

There are lots more comments - I've not read them all. You can read more of the 213 comments here.


  1. I wonder, if the emails become available, if the WUWTers will show their usual inability to understand plain English when interpreting their contents. I expect that they will: the consistency extending so far as to dictate their interpreting them in a manner sympathetic to the fossil fuel industry.

    1. The question before that one is:

      Would the documents get published on WUWT if they were to become public, or would Anthony regard publishing publicly available documents to be a violation of free speech? :)

    2. I expect, for consistency, WUWT will present the fossil fuel industry case by selective quote mining and plain misrepresentation of their contents. And every climate change denier will claim to have examined the emails closely even while their parroting of denier websites indicates complete ignorance of what's really in them.

    3. But imagine the dire consequences if some of the worse rednecks were convinced that they had been conned by the fossil fuel industry into destroying their own children's futures. I don't want gun toting crazies on my side.

  2. These people really, really can't see themselves from the outside, can they? Hypocrites all.

    In the future, will there be tribunals, inquiries, royal commissions, and court cases? Yes, there will be tribunals, inquiries, royal commissions, and court cases. Many prominent deniers fully deserve to spend their declining years appearing as witnesses, if not defendants. It is only a pity that no punishment can reverse the harm they've already done...

    I also thing they'll remain a significant subject of psychological/political/criminalistic study, as we endeavour to determine how such venality/imbecility can be avoided in our (now darker) future...

    1. It's been just under 13 years since GOP Presidential candidate Senator McCain co-authored legislation in 2003 to cap greenhouse gases.
      McCain was strong: It is time for the United States government to do its part to address this global problem, and a discussion of mandatory reductions is the form of leadership that is required.

      In the 2008 McCain won the GOP presidential candidacy and still supported emissions pricing although he said he would not send any bill to Congress until after the US exited from the great recession which kicked in two months before polling day.

      McCain's bizarre choice for VP, Sarah Palin believed AGW was real but disputed the anthropogenic percentage. Compared to today's extreme GOP congressional homogeneity it was a rational if uninformed position.

      There were many on the GOP house and Senate who publicly acknowledged science but on Oct 18, 2012 the switch was thrown and suddenly the Republicans became the only major party in the world to deny science as a matter of political policy.

      That switch was the the Supreme Court's decision that corporations were people and money was speech.

      Citizens United continues to damage the US polity and the health of generations to come.

      Both Clinton and Sanders are committed to getting Citizens United brought back before SCOTUS but this time with a majority of Democrat appointed judges. If either is the successful candidate on Nov 4 the GOP will suddenly discover reason because they will no longer be paid to eschew it.

      Doners Trust will be a donut crust.

    2. That switch was the the Supreme Court's decision that corporations were people and money was speech.

      Exactly, PG. On that date, elections became for sale to the highest better. It's like the SCOTUS hung a sign on the door saying: "Come on... curruption!".

    3. Doh. 'bidder', not 'better' :-/

    4. Deniers believe this is part of an effort to deny free speech because they, in fact, use this very same technique to attempt to deny scientists the right to free speech. They recognize that a result of the use of this tactic is guarded speech, or worse, self-censored/self-suppressed speech.

    5. "These people really cannot see themselves from the outside, can they?"

      The entire wretched climate contrarian pantomime is contingent on a small cluster of persistent oblivious stupidity, combining paranoia, aggression and entitlement with an absence of knowledge skills...once that cluster is enabled by fossil fuel industry self-interest in the best democracy money can buy, we have two decades plus of policy paralysis.

      Don't expect the cluster of dumb to suddenly grow a brain.

    6. @metzomagic
      'bidder', not 'better
      Canadian eh?

    7. Canadian eh?

      No, Yankee ex-pat living in Ireland for past 30 years. But I had coincidentally spent the entire afternoon the day before throwing money at horses in the English grand national at Aintree. So 'better' was a Freudian slip, I suppose :-/

  3. They have backed themselves so far into a corner, as both the facts and data have drifted away from them, often their only recourse is to claim "conspiracy" or to back such a patently pseudoscientific theory - it sticks in the throat of all but the most deluded

    So the problem for the more "rational" ones I.e. The ones who simply see the debate as a proxy to defend their neocon/liberal worldview is that they hate being associated with twoofers, chemmies, NWO , agenda 21 and creationist, and seemingly their only escape is to leap onto "the chariots of the gods"

    Hobson choice

  4. You guys just wait for the next La Nina. Even if it is a record warmest La Nina, you're still going to get yours.

    I'll be back. - Arnold Alois Pauzenegger

    1. JCH means the globe will have been cooling... since last Wednesday. ∴ Conspiracy! An Ice Age Cometh!

      Sadly, that'll be exactly what happens...

  5. What with this development and the Panama Papers it's been a rather enjoyable week :)

    1. *passes the popcorn* :D

    2. CC - sorry about the delay. It's the Google spam catcher playing up again.

  6. Although this does look to be shaping up as one of the best evah popcorn moments concerning the AGW 'debate', I wonder what the legal precedent for subpoena of e-mails is when the target is a non-profit (which I assume the CEI is).

    It's clear that the scientists at NOAA, for instance, are publicly funded, and subject to strict data retention laws/FOIA. But what are the data retention laws concerning non-profits? If they even need to retain records for a certain time, how far back? And if they are not beholden to the same laws as publicly funded organisations, can't they just delete anything that's inconvenient?

    But, assuming they have to comply, then I'm particularly interested in correspondence related to item no. 5 in that classification list :-)

    1. I don't know about the data retention laws. If CEI destroyed evidence after the subpoena that would be a crime I understand.

    2. Destruction of evidence would be very serious. It would also be a very dangerous and desperate tactic on their part, because if other copies show up on Exxon servers, or intermediary servers... Let's just say, judges frown on such activities.

    3. Why...the whole corporation might ber found in contempt of court and the documents of incorporation representing the "corporate person" placed in a jail cell

    4. Does the CEI have charitable status for tax purposes? There may be some data retention requirements associated with that.

    5. Corporations and non-profits (and individuals) have few data retention requirements, but when a subpoena comes, you destroy anything and they'll lock you up for destroying it. And if you destroyed information *for the purpose* of hiding it, that's illegal as well.

      As a consequence, well-run organizations have data retention policies that specify when information can be destroyed. If the policy says you must destroy records after five years, it's not destruction of evidence to send boxes to the shredder, and it may become a simple clerical error if some of those boxes contain subpoenaed evidence.

      You do need to destroy information; it's expensive to maintain and catalogue it.

    6. Where's John Mashey when you need him? I figure he'd have a reasonable idea of how open to this the CEI actually is.

    7. I think they have to make "reasonable" attempts to provide the info requested by the subpoena/discovery.

      I think legally it is in their best interest to comply.

  7. The US are, to their credit a lot tougher on corporate fraud/wrong doing than the UK

    Pretty much all the billions in fines paid by UK banks in the last 10 years have been as a result of US prosecutions

    Indeed the whole FIFA corruption scandal was only blown wide open when the U.S. Got involved

    So maybe the CEI are feeling the heat

    1. I hate to say it but most fines are not US ones which makes me wonder if the prosecutors are interested in pursuing non-US companies?

  8. Cugel, the subpoena is not part of an investigation into CEI, it is part of an investigation of Exxon Mobile for alleged violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). It is thus a criminal investigation. The fact that CEI does not receive government funding is irrelevant. The subpoena seeks any communications and documents shared between CEI and Exxon Mobile or entities acting on behalf of EM, including funding sources linked to EM.

    1. That would be to metzomagic, not me :)

    2. Ah, yes, of course. Thanks for the clarification, Jim. We're probably on to a winner.

    3. It kind of ties in with fair trade, consumer choice and all that. I have to admit the "investigation" is a bit woolly.

    4. Sorry Cugel, I don't know how I goofed that up.

  9. Why is CEI protesteth-ing so much? Can we ALL say, intellectual dishonesty, to the tenth power?

  10. CEI is a registered non-profit charity exempt from income tax (CEI IRS Form 990 filings) but I don't think this status plays a role in this legal issue.

    My interpretation* is that the Virgin Islands AG subpoena is clear and specific and focused on the investigation of ExxonMobil's actions, with CEI being simply one of the parties that ExxonMobil may have employed. There is no suggestion that CEI violated any laws itself here. Had, let's say, that world-renowned think tank Magma Deep Thoughts Inc. provided ExxonMobil with cover for hire over the years, I might expect prosecutors to take in interest in my own dealings with the company.

    None of the comments on WUWT came as any surprise with the exception of Nick Stokes' opinion that both the subpoena for the document search and the prosecution itself were legal overreaches that CEI should fight.

    * as a non-lawyer, so worth its weight in electrons and hot air

    1. I was surprised by Nick's comment. He thought it was over-reach. There are apparently lists of organisations funded by Exxon directly, including disinformation organisations. With regard to the indirect funding (via Donors Trust) that seems to me to be a legitimate request given the way that Donors Trust was set up and is used - I don't know if there are records of Exxon funneling money through Donors Trust or not.


      I believe CEI can appeal but I don't know that it would hold up, given CEI's activities. (An appeal might itself be a risky move for CEI.)

  11. I could be wrong, but I suspect Denierville is seeing a difference between (on the one hand) a private citizen seeing government-related documents (the subpoenas that have been filed by CEI et. al.), and (on the other) a government seeking private documents from a corporation. The former (they would claim) is an attempt to keep a rein on Evil Government, whereas the latter is a governmental infringement on "freedom" (or freedumb).

    What they forget of course is a) private citizens (read:corporations) can commit crimes, which can often only be prosecuted by governments (and that is one of the primary functions of government -- to prosecute crimes), and b) in a democracy, The People *ARE* the government, and the government *IS* The People. So when the government of a democracy acts, it is, in fact, a collective action of individuals (just as is a FIOA request).

    Using the RICO Act is precisely the same as prosecuting drug dealers -- if drug dealers had an international cartel that produced heroin, coupled with an advertising arm dedicated to convincing consumers that heroin overdoses are good for kids.

    Government is the only human effort that can put the brakes on the excesses and illegality of corporate action. This isn't an infringement of speech. It is a prosecution of a crime against humanity.

    1. "Heroin is brain food. Feed your head!"

    2. "... if drug dealers had an international cartel that produced heroin, coupled with an advertising arm dedicated to convincing consumers that heroin overdoses are good for kids."

      Would that "advertising arm" have track marks?

  12. @ D.C.Petterson

    Added to the above (with which I agree) I think there is a cultural difference

    Imo U.S. Citizens "trust" corporations to protect them from the excesses of the Government, whereas in the UK ( and Europe) we (in general) accept the Government has a role in protecting us from the excesses from corporations

    1. Tadaa - I don't think there are many Americans, even Republicans, that trust corporations. But there has clearly been a PR campaign waged against government by conservatives going back to at least Roosevelt's New Deal.

      There's a nice article in the Washington Post - How The Scandinavians Got So Tall - about a book called 'American Amnesia" that explores this issue.

    2. I saw a video of Noam Chomsky banging his head against a wall trying to explain this obvious point to some young, earnest 'Libertarians' (US type) who just refused to believe that corporations could be conceived of as tyrannic.

      His pupil - Pinker - has some interesting things to say about this difference between the US and Europe in this regard in 'The Better Angels of our Nature'. The book itself is highly problematic - its central thesis needs to have the disclaimer 'WWI and WWII notwithstanding' attached, something of a hiccup - but a lot of the discussion is genuinely interesting.

      He argues that Europeans had more-or-less accepted Hobbes' Leviathans - the monarchic tyrannical states (moderated by more-or-less tokenistic parliaments) as legitimate (if grudgingly), and the state then became ever more legitimate in their eyes as it genuinely democratized.

      Whereas in the US a rejection of centralized governmental authority and a remarkable, anachronistic frontier mentality has prevailed, which continues to play out in such phenomena as the Tea Party, the general level of violence, and the lunatic (in the eyes of the rest of the 'advanced' world) gun debate.

    3. @ kevin - thank you for the article, an interesting read. I have actually commented before on another forum that recent statistics show some sections of the US demographic are experiencing a reduction in life expectancy - so to a certain extent the article was conformation bias!!

      my comment was in reference to a recent article by a writer / commentator on technology - John Naughton about a recent European visit by Eric Schmidt (CEO of Google)


      as always all "generalisations are wrong - but some are more useful that others!!"

  13. When Republican Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli tried to get documents from Michael Mann, I wrote an open letter to him comparing it to a witch hunt and advising him to get advice from his colleagues in Salem on the advisability of his actions.(Not often I get to link to myself in the New York Times… couldn’t resist.)

    When Democratic Congressman Raul Grijalva called for investigations of 7 scientists who dispute the consensus view (as promulgated by NGOs and other hysterics), I wrote, “This is a witch hunt. Representative Grijalva, call off your dogs. You make me ashamed of my political party.”

    When Republican Congressman Lamar Smith issued a subpoena for emails and records from NOAA scientists participating in Thomas Karl’s rather desperate attempt to prove the ‘pause’ in global warming never existed, I wrote “What Representative Smith is doing is both wrong and stupid. Wrong, because we don’t need to create a climate of fear in science. Scientists should be able to communicate via email without re-reading every word they write with an eye on future investigations. Stupid, because witch hunts don’t increase your stature, reputation, amount of information or even the size of your… big toe.”

    When hardball climate activists from both parties signed an open letter calling for RICO investigations of climate skeptics and fossil fuel companies I wrote “I oppose these political prosecutions on principle–they are abhorrent to believers of the rule of law and representative democracy. I also oppose them on grounds of efficacy–these prosecutions will delay the finding of appropriate answers to the important question of what we should do about climate change. These prosecutions are wrong. They are worse than wrong, they are stupid. They are worse than wrong and stupid–they are unnecessary mistakes.”


    1. As is typical of deniers in their little self-centred bubbles, it's all about what Tom, Dick or Harry Denier thinks (whoever Tom, Dick or Harry is) :(

      I expect Tom feels the same way about the tobacco industry investigations.

    2. 'When hardline activists from the Department of Justice intitiated a RICO suit against Philip Morris I immediately denounced it as a witch hunt...'

    3. The false equivalence here has to be called out.

      The document demands from Ken Cuccinelli and Lamar Smith were intended to stifle science and intimidate scientists, who were engaged in research with the goal of learning about what is happening to the planet.

      The investigation by Raul Grijalva and the current RICO investigation are intended to prosecute crimes.

      Tom is equating the terrorist who shoots up a public place with a loaded AK-47, and the police who arrest that terrorist. The two are not the same.

  14. "Thomas Karl’s rather desperate attempt to prove the ‘pause’ in global warming never existed, '

    Climate hyperbole is dead? The existence of the "pause" was considered very dubious long before Karl's paper. Go on back and read Sou's columns from the time, especially the one in which Anthony Watts flat-out accuses Tom Peterson of fraud and Peterson replies basically asking Watts if they're supposed to ignore evidence of biased measurements.

    1. Tamino's blog has all along said the "pause" never existed. It only showed up in one (1) cherry-picked dataset (lower troposphere temps from RSS), and even then, only if you hold your head at the right angle and don't blink at the wrong instant.

      Melting glaciers, ocean heat content, changing growing seasons, shifts in migration patterns, vanishing Arctic polar cap, ocean acidification, surface temperatures, changing wind patterns, droughts and epic storms increasing in severity -- all point to the undeniable truth that warming did not "pause", and in fact, did not slow down.

      It's simple arithmetic. The Earth absorbs more heat from the Sun than it releases into space. We know both the input number and the output number very precisely, from direct observation. Subtract the output from the input, you get a positive number. That excess heat is staying here, and continues to warm the planet. Case closed.

    2. regarding

      It's simple arithmetic. The Earth absorbs more heat from the Sun than it releases into space. We know both the input number and the output number very precisely, from direct observation. Subtract the output from the input, you get a positive number. That excess heat is staying here, and continues to warm the planet. Case closed.

      yes, why isn't this simple truth hammered home more

      indeed surely it is basic physics that the more energy you put into a system the more volatility you will get

  15. CEI will obviously claim butt-hurt "oblivious" to their own hypocrisy, but it is water off a ducks back to them. They will say pretty much anything in their own self interest.

    The way I look at it is the CEI are not interested in scientific truth, they are interested in representing their patrons (ie money).

  16. This is hilarious. I started reading it yesterday so I am no longer laughing hysterically but I still am chuckling every few minutes.

    It reminds me of the time that Lousiana passed a law for voucher schools which was tacitly but obviously intended to finance fundamentalist christian schools and the first application came from a Muslim madrassa in New Orleans. A Louisiana legislator was heard to mutter something along the lines of. “I can't tell my constituents this”.

  17. This is related in that it is climate news, and has to do with legal action.

    I haven't yet read the whole thing, but there was a lawsuit filed today on the behalf of "a group of younger individuals (aged 8-19) who assert concrete harm from excessive carbon emissions." They are seeking damages against "The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; et al."


    The linked document is hosted at http://ourchildrenstrust.org/ which claims on its home page, "We lead a game-changing, youth-driven, global climate recovery campaign, securing the legal right to a healthy atmosphere and stable climate."

    1. Thanks, DC. That will be an interesting case - worth following.

  18. Is CEI open to problems? I THINK SO.

    MAS2010 Crescendo to Climategate Cacophony (2010)

    MAS2010a Strange Scholarship in the Wegman Report.

    MAS2012d Fake science, fakexperts, funny finances, free of tax 2

    UCS2012 UCSUSA - Establishing accountability for climate change damages - lessons from tobacco control.

    Study the participants on pp.34-36.
    Roberta Walburn was key lawyer in key win against tobacco in MN.

    Sharon Eubanks was *the* DoJ attorney who drove RICO case (READ
    Bad Acts: The Racketeering Case Against the Tobacco Industry, and
    Stan Glantz runs UCSF Center For Tobacco Control Research and Education (CTCRE), which has the Truth Tobacco Industry Documents database.
    Go there, and just for fun, search for "Competitive Enterprise Institute"

    Sharon is very sharp, and of course knows a bit about RICO: Exxon’s Climate Cover-Up Should Be Investigated By DOJ, Tobacco Prosecutor Says.

    Read UCS2012, but in addition, between
    Robert Proctor's Golden Holocaust,
    and work that Stan and 2 postdocs were doing,
    which intersected with the work in MAS2012d (well, the earlier version had most of it, include the exposure of DONORS),
    there was a clear progression of Big Tobacco:

    1) industry group (like Tobacco Institute)
    2) Front groups of various sorts
    3) Use of think tanks as credible independent voices
    and then to
    4) more direct politics, i.e., Kochs+tobacco created the Tea Party.

    Now, MAS2010
    CRUCIAL: pp.19-20 on the GCSCT1998 meeting at API.
    Big Fossil had learned from Big Tobacco: don't be obvious.

    See p.93 on funding:
    Exxon gave big to CEI and FF/CSPP (Frontiers of Freedom), p.60.

    Myron Ebell was at GCSCT1998 for FF, but later moved to CEI.
    See his entry pp.120-121, incl
    "Myron Ebell, of the Competitiveness Enterprise Institute and a prominent global warming sceptic, told BBCNews:
    "We've always wanted to get the science on trial", and "we would like to figure out a way to get this into a court of law", adding "this could work"". He may get his chance.

    Ebell was right in the middle of the Barton intimidation letters to MBH ... and he had copies of them within a few hours, sent them over to the White House. I know for sure he had them before Ray Bradley.

    MAS2010a pp.27-32, that shows the orchestration of the attack on the hockey stick: CEI+GMI.

    1) GCSCT1998 looks to me like a conspiracy meeting. Read that.

    2) So, if there's a RICO case (and Sharon thinks so) against Exxon, it sure seems plausible that any co-conspirators will get dragged in.

    3) It may just be a coincidence, but the George Marshall Institute was right there with CEI, but just last year, Will Happer Rebrands George C. Marshall Institute As CO2 Coalition. GMI is no more.


Instead of commenting as "Anonymous", please comment using "Name/URL" and your name, initials or pseudonym or whatever. You can leave the "URL" box blank. This isn't mandatory. You can also sign in using your Google ID, Wordpress ID etc as indicated. NOTE: Some Wordpress users are having trouble signing in. If that's you, try signing in using Name/URL. Details here.

Click here to read the HotWhopper comment policy.