“Thirteen state GOP attorneys general have sent a letter to the Democratic AG’s who are investigating ExxonMobile for fraud in climate change research, telling them that if minimizing the danger of climate change is fraud, so is exaggerating the peril. They threaten to prosecute climate alarmists for making spectacular claims of disaster that have not materialized.”
I’m guessing this is right wing extremists?
Sauce for the goose…
Doesn’t that describe anyone who doesn’t hold to the most extreme, worst case scenarios regarding “climate change”?
The biggest man-made cause of climate change is the logging of an area, we are variously told, the size of Wales or Belgium, yearly. This is because less lung means the earth breathes less.
(We ought to call for palm oil products to be sourced from small, old-fashioned, fair-trade plantations in West Africa.)
There are probably other major trends and whether they are man-made or not, needs looking into (may partly be). It is probably very difficult to devise suitable methods of observation.
I dare say it’s complex projecting the nature of the climate change, overall, let alone from different causes. It’s plausible that the only predictable thing is unpredictability.
I’ve known of several kinds of fraud around science and I’m only talking about observing the past:
- deliberately unhelpful experiment design so as to produce results more likely to mislead
- small samples are a favourite
- convoluted interdependency of pieces of information derived from each other is another
- deliberately faulty measurements or “corrections” to data
- “conclusions” that don’t match the data
That’s before you get to any possible conflicts of interest.
Which computer model did you use to reach that conclusion?
Are you talking about the global warming alarmists, or the global warming deniers?
I don’t believe a balancing point of view can be considered “extreme.” What IS extreme is the threat to legally prosecute and silence those whose opinion differs from yours. George Orwell had a lot to say about the “Thought Police.” It just took them a few years after 1984 to arrive.
Tit for tat. Childish, but predictable (and perhaps necessary, as long as this leads to de-escalation.)
So had the tables been turned, and the democrat AG were the ones doing the prosecuting, would you have called it liberal agenda or something else?
I think you are missing the point, this is the republican AGs trying to turn the tables, and show the Democrat AGs that their prosecuting “Climate change deniers” is part of a “liberal agenda” and it is a terrible abuse of power, and we all said as much when the news story first broke.
Often a counter suit is the best way to get a frivolous suit withdrawn.