Vermont climate scientist says RICO investigations not attack on free speech

By Michael Bielawski, @ Vermont Watchdog, April 6, 2016, 27 Comments

By Michael Bielawski and Bruce Parker | Vermont Watchdog

As more than a dozen states investigate energy companies over an alleged global warming coverup, Vermont “RICO 20” professor Alan Betts says backers aren’t engaged in an anti-free-speech witch-hunt.

Last week, top attorneys led by New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and former Vice President Al Gore announced a collective effort to investigate Exxon Mobil over environmentalist claims that the company misled the public about its role in climate change.
Among those present was Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell, who said his office may join the investigation.

Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt blasted the investigation as a “publicity stunt,” and touted a 27-state lawsuit to fight the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan. West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, appearing on the Inside Shale Weekly radio program, responded, “You cannot use the power of the office of the attorney general to silence your critics.”

The actions are backed by the “RICO 20,” a group of 20 climate scientists that urged President Obama and U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch to use the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act against fossil fuel companies, especially Exxon Mobil. Jagadish Shukla, a climate dynamics professor at George Mason University, and leader of the RICO 20, has been investigated by Congress for possible abuse of $1.5 million in taxpayer grants.

Alan Betts, a climate scientist from Pittsford, says the professors aren’t attacking free speech.
“It wasn’t about freedom of speech; it was all about Exxon and their deception back in the 1980s,” Betts told Vermont Watchdog.

“(Critics said) we were attacking scientists and things like that, but that was completely untrue. It was about trying to hold Exxon responsible for their deceit over the years, which has led to a great delay in taking action on greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.”

That “deception” and “deceit” refers to reports authored by Columbia Journalism School fellows — and run in the Los Angeles Times — that accused Exxon of expressing climate change doubts while internal company research supported global warming claims. While Exxon has attributed conflicting research to a lack of consensus on what to do about climate change, the New York Post reported that the Columbia Journalism School project was organized by anti-Exxon activist Steve Coll and funded by a host of anti-fossil-fuel foundations.

Despite telltale signs of environmental advocacy behind claims against Exxon, Betts maintains that Exxon’s actions are akin to tobacco companies defending cigarette marketing while knowing the dangers of smoking. That claim could allow states and the global warming industry to reap a financial windfall on par with the $206 billion attained through the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement of 1998. That settlement involved attorneys general of 46 states and four leading tobacco companies in the United States.

Walter Olson, a RICO expert and senior fellow at the CATO Center for Constitutional Studies, told Vermont Watchdog claims by the RICO 20 lack merit.

“This does remind me of the old days in which the authorities would decide they need to convict someone and now let’s find a crime,” he said. “… It does rather look as if they’ve decided they want to convict someone of something, and now the question is what remote area of law can they turn to in hopes finding guilt.”

According to Olson, companies — especially ones with tens of thousands of employees like Exxon Mobil — hire experts to pursue “what-if scenarios,” such as a global warming doomsday situation. He said the companies are not legally bound to promote the views of certain individuals or groups within the company. He added that the effort could have a chilling effect on free speech and open inquiry.

“They are attempting to attach legal punishment to businesses that speak their mind on controversial public issues — that is something that should frighten everyone in the business community,” Olson said. “Everyone sometimes has problems with government and wants to be free to speak out without punishment based on the fact that some people think the opinions are wrong.”

Betts denied that environmentalists could be heading for a scandal of their own making, as when leaked emails from East Anglia University in 2009 revealed climate scientists manipulated data to hide information that did not support the theory of global warming — a scandal popularly known as “Climategate.”

“Those allegations were created by the various organizations,” Betts said. “… Somebody hacked into their databases and proceeded to edit their databases and selectively manipulate their emails to try and make a case.”

Olson said fossil-fuel companies can’t be convicted of fraud in this instance because companies aren’t responsible for endorsing any particular internal opinion within a company.

“There is no single unified brain in a company. … There isn’t a requirement that there be a single person knowing everything that everyone knows in the company and then deciding who’s right,” he said.

He added that companies often keep employees with divergent views to gain the best insights, and that no single researcher represents the company more than another.

Contact Michael Bielawski at mbielawski@watchdog.org

  

Click here to LEARN HOW TO STEAL OUR STUFF!

 

 

Michael Bielawski - A Seton Hall 2005 graduate, Michael has been writing freelance articles for various publications in and around New York City, Seoul in South Korea, upstate NY and Vermont for ten years. He currently is a staff writer at the Hardwick Gazette keeping track of rising school budgets and other rural Vermont issues. He likes best to write about health, economics, and geopolitics generally looking for angles not seen in mainstream media. At home he's very busy looking after two little boys and during free time loves to watch Stanley Kubrick films off Netflix.

My Take - The author is being far too kind.  These guys are using the same tactics Joe Stalin and Trofim Denisovich Lysenko  used to silence anyone who disagreed with the junk scientific promoted by Lysenko.  Science that had to be accurate because it was harmonious with Stalin's next or newest social engineering five year plan. 

And when the five year plan failed to produce the "demanded "results it was never the fault of the plan.  It was Stalin's plan reinforced by Lysenko's junk science, so it was the perfect plan, therefore it must have been the fault of those in charge of making the plan work.  After all - failure to produce the demanded results according to the plan was a deliberate attempt by those in charge to thwart "the plan".  Guess what happened to them? Since it clearly was and act of treason to fail the penalty was a loss of "rights" - permanently!

And the end result of all official junk science consensus?   The starvation and death of tens of millions of Soviet citizens.   But the plan was perfect - so any criticism of "the plan" was treason, and was always punished!

Let's get this right once and for all.  Global Warming is the greatest scam ever perpetrated on an unsuspecting, ill informed, misinformed world population.  And it's advocates policies would destroy the modern world causing dystopia worldwide and the death of millions.....but I'm all for this RICO effort - but we need to do it across the board - both sides must face the inquisitor and anyone found perpetrating fraud should be penalized.  If these AGW promoters, including the politicians as well as the academics, agree to that - then I say let's move forward with it.  

Okay - let's see a show of hands of agreement for this from the AGW crowd !