The New Inquisition
Democrat Attorneys General band together to Sue Those Who Question Global Warming
In a 4 April 2016 Daily Signal article, the actions of the AGs United for
Clean (Political) Power came to light:
“Beginning in 1478, the Spanish Inquisition systematically silenced any citizen who held views that did not align with the king’s. Using the powerful arm of the government, the grand inquisitor, Tomas de Torquemada, and his henchmen sought out all those who held religious, scientific, or moral views that conflicted with the monarch’s, punishing the ‘heretics’ with jail sentences; property confiscation; fines; and in severe cases, torture and execution.
One of the lasting results of the Spanish Inquisition was a stifling of speech, thought, and scientific debate throughout Spain. By treating one set of scientific views as absolute, infallible, and above critique, Spain silenced many brilliant individuals and stopped the development of new ideas and technological innovations. Spain became a scientific backwater.
As an old adage says, those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. So we now have a new inquisition underway in America in the 21st century—something that would have seemed unimaginable not too long ago.
Treating climate change as an absolute, unassailable fact, instead of what it is—an unproven, controversial scientific theory—a group of state attorneys general have announced that they will be targeting any companies that challenge the catastrophic climate change religion.
Speaking at a press conference on March 29, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said, ‘The bottom line is simple: Climate change is real.’ He went on to say that if companies are committing fraud by “lying” about the dangers of climate change, they will “pursue them to the fullest extent of the law.’
The coalition of 17 inquisitors are calling themselves ‘AGs United for Clean Power.’ The coalition consists of 15 state attorneys general (California, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington State), as well as the attorneys general of the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands. Sixteen of the seventeen members are Democrats, while the attorney general for the Virgin Islands, Claude Walker, is an independent.
The inquisitors are threatening legal action and huge fines against anyone who declines to believe in an unproven scientific theory.
Schneiderman and Kamala Harris, representing New York and California, respectively, have already launched investigations into ExxonMobil for allegedly funding research that questioned climate change. Exxon emphatically denounced the accusations as false, pointing out that the investigation that “uncovered” this research was funded by advocacy foundations that publicly support climate change activism.
“Independent” Virgin Islands AG Withdraws Subpeona Action
As reported by a 30 May 2016 NewsMax article, the AG from the Virgin Islands as withdrawn his subpeona which he originally filed in DC:
Last week, the case against the Washington-based Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) took a new direction when Attorney General Claude Walker of the U.S. Virgin Islands suddenly announced he was withdrawing the subpoena action he filed in the District of Columbia.
But no one at CEI thinks that the assault on them and their arguments against man-made global warming is over — not by a long shot.
Noting that the original subpoena against his group that was filed in the Virgin Islands remains, CEI General Counsel Sam Kazman told reporters that Walker and his fellow attorneys general ‘apparently think they can continue their unconstitutional intimidation campaign against anyone that challenges their view of climate change.’
Portland Democrats ban any curriculum that argues against global warming
According to a 19 May 2016 Portland Tribune article, the leadership of the Portland government schools have voted to limit the educational options of students in their charge by ensuring only one side of the global warming debate is taught:
“In a move spearheaded by environmentalists, the Portland Public Schools board unanimously approved a resolution aimed at eliminating doubt of climate change and its causes in schools.
‘It is unacceptable that we have textbooks in our schools that spread doubt about the human causes and urgency of the crisis,’ said Lincoln High School student Gaby Lemieux in board testimony. ‘Climate education is not a niche or a specialization, it is the minimum requirement for my generation to be successful in our changing world.’
The resolution passed Tuesday evening calls for the school district to get rid of textbooks or other materials that cast doubt on whether climate change is occurring and that the activity of human beings is responsible. The resolution also directs the superintendent and staff to develop an implementation plan for ‘curriculum and educational opportunities that address climate change and climate justice in all Portland Public Schools.’ ”
Naturally, this comes from the liberal side (who like to characterize the right as uneducated and clinging to antiquated concepts and who like to think of themselves as erudite).
California Lawmakers Considered Outlawing Free Speech on Climate Change
The Washington Times reports in a 2 June 2016 article that the California legislature killed a bill in the state Senate which would have outlawed dissent against global warming:
“The measure was introduced amid a national push by Democrats and activist groups to use the legal system to prosecute climate change ‘fraud,’ prompting a backlash from skeptics who have denounced the campaign as an assault on free speech.
A coalition of 17 state attorneys general, including California Attorney General Kamala Harris, have joined forces to pursue climate change skeptics. At least four prosecutors reportedly have launched investigations into Exxon Mobil for climate change ‘fraud.’
Introduced by state Sen. Ben Allen, Santa Monica Democrat, S.B. 1161 had strong support from environmental groups, led by the Union of Concerned Scientists.
The group, which had no immediate comment on the bill’s failure, had argued that the measure was needed to challenge efforts to ‘confuse consumers and fend off competition from lower-carbon energy sources.’
‘To be clear, S.B. 1161 does not presume that any fossil fuel company has violated the law. But should the evidence support legal action, S.B. 1161 will give public prosecutors a more powerful tool to pursue it,‘ Jason Barbose, Western states policy manager of the Union of Concerned Scientists, said in a May 16 post.”
Even when the science is far from settled, the Democrats want to outlaw any discussion supporting the stance of anyone who disagrees with the global warming orthodoxy.
Twenty Professors Who Promote Criminalizing Thought They Despise
Liberal professors across the country came together to write a letter to President Obama and discussed by Hans von Spakovsky in a Daily Signal opinion piece:
“Are you skeptical of human-caused global warming or climate change like many respected scientists and climate experts? Then you should be prosecuted like a Mafia mob boss, according to 20 academics at ivory towers like Columbia, Rutgers, and the University of Washington.
Apparently, these professors either don’t believe in the First Amendment or are profoundly ignorant of the basic rights it protects. They recently wrote an open letter to President Barack Obama and Attorney General Loretta Lynch asking for anyone who questions the climate-change dogma to be criminally prosecuted under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act because they have ‘knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change.’
RICO is a federal law passed in 1970 as part of the Organized Crime Control Act that was intended to be used as a tool to go after organized crime, including dangerous drug cartels and Mafia operations.
The letter writers believe that any individuals and organizations involved in questioning the ‘science’ behind global warming are the equivalent of the racketeers the RICO law was supposed to stop—racketeers like the kind Marlon Brando portrayed as Vito Corleone in ‘The Godfather’ (1972) or Edward G. Robinson played as Enrico ‘Rico’ Bandello in ‘Little Caesar’ (1931). In fact, the acronym for the federal law, RICO, comes from that Edward G. Robinson character.
The professors seem totally oblivious to the fundamental infringement of free speech they are urging. Not only that, but they seem completely insensible to the basic mission of academic institutions, which is to foster, as the University of Washington (where two of the academics who signed this letter teach) mission statement says: ‘an environment for objectivity and imaginative inquiry and for the original scholarship and research that ensure the production of new knowledge in the free exchange of facts, theories, and ideas.’
These academics are trying to foster the exact opposite of a ‘free exchange of facts, theories, and ideas.’ They want to end all scientific debate.
Oddly, the group who produced both politicians and educators who blithely accuse those on the right of being “nazis” have produced this group of political educators who would strip all of us of our free speech rights.
However, Facts Get in the Way of This New Inquisition
Judicial Watch Unearths a New Climate-Change-Data Scandal
According to a 22 December 2015 Daily Caller article, a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act lawsuit has hit paydirt in the form of a new climate-change-data scandal:
“A non-profit watchdog group’s lawsuit against the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration may have spurred the agency to release documents to a congressional committee that reveal a ‘new climate data scandal.’
Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit Dec. 2, 2015, against NOAA ‘regarding methodology for collecting and interpreting data used in climate models,’ the group said Tuesday.
The House Committee on Science, Space and Technology subpoenaed the same documents earlier this year, but NOAA refused to hand the records over until a few days after Judicial Watch filed its lawsuit.
‘We have little doubt that our lawsuit helped to pry these scandalous climate change report documents from the Obama administration,’ Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said. ‘Given the lawless refusal to comply with our FOIA request and a congressional subpoena, we have little doubt that the documents will show the Obama administration put politics before science in advance of global warming alarmism.’
It seems that if liberals cannot collect data to support their global warming claims, they will unethically piece together unrelated information to create their case from whole cloth.
Study Finds Exaggerations in Global Warming Tenets
A study produced by the University of Reading and reported in an 8 June 2016 Daily Caller article indicates that previous estimations of the effect of aerosols on global temperatures seem to be overblown:
“A major scientific study conducted at the University of Reading on the interactions between aerosols and clouds is much weaker than most climate models assume, meaning the planet could warm way less than predicted.
‘Currently, details are few, but apparently the results of a major scientific study on the effects of anthropogenic aerosols on clouds are going to have large implications for climate change projections—substantially lowering future temperature rise expectations,’ Cato Institute climate scientists Patrick Michaels and Chip Knappenberger wrote in a recent blog post.
Michaels and Knappenberger, both self-described ‘lukewarmers,’ cited a blog post by Reading scientist Dr. Nicolas Bellouin on the preliminary results of his extensive research into this rather vague area of climate science.
Bellouin wrote ‘there are reasons to expect that aerosol-cloud interactions are weaker than simulated by climate models – and perhaps even weaker than the preliminary… estimate.’
If Bellouin’s preliminary results hold (or are revised downward), that would mean there’s less of a cooling effect from human-created aerosols interacting with clouds, which morph clouds so they bounce incoming solar energy back into space.“
Despite Obama’s claims, this debate still gathers data, still requires close analysis, and still has yet to be proven. Therefore, why don’t we just allow free speech to do what it was meant to do?