Article

2016-06-18 -Signs, Portents, and the Weather-

GOP AGs warn Dems: if climate skeptics can be prosecuted for ‘fraud,’ so can alarmists

Punch back twice as hard.

If Democratic attorneys general can pursue climate change skeptics for fraud, then also at risk of prosecution are climate alarmists whose predictions of global doom have failed to materialize.

The “cuts both ways” argument was among those raised by 13 Republican attorneys general in a letter urging their Democratic counterparts to stop using their law enforcement power against fossil fuel companies and others that challenge the climate change catastrophe narrative.

Consider carefully the legal precedent and threat to free speech, said the state prosecutors in their letter this week, headed by Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange.

“If it is possible to minimize the risks of climate change, then the same goes for exaggeration,” said the letter. “If minimization is fraud, exaggeration is fraud.”

The letter comes as Exxon Mobil fights off subpoenas by two prosecutors — Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey and Virgin Islands Attorney General Claude E. Walker — for decades’ worth of climate-related documents and communications with academics, universities and free-market think tanks. New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman and California Attorney General Kamala Harris have also reportedly launched probes.

Posted by Steve White 2016-06-18 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11125 views ] Top

#1 Would the RICO act come into play?

Posted by CrazyFool 2016-06-18 01:30|| 2016-06-18 01:30|| Front Page Top

#2 “If it is possible to minimize the risks of climate change, then the same goes for exaggeration,” said the letter. “If minimization is fraud, exaggeration is fraud.”

I like the 13 AG's reasoning. It was good for a laugh and in a way, I like anything that jabs at these left wing PC tyrants who are pushing their agenda. And perhaps it is best to push legislation at the State level. However, I'd be concerned that any such prosecution would have the effect of stifling 1st Amendment rights on either side. I'd rather see an argument based on protecting the 1st Amendment rights of individuals. However, SCOTUS has shown itself to be untrustworthy to protect individual liberties.

Posted by JohnQC 2016-06-18 10:30|| 2016-06-18 10:30|| Front Page Top

#3 You don't fight the lefts suppression of our freedom of speech with more restrictions on freedom of speech.

Posted by 49 Pan 2016-06-18 10:52|| 2016-06-18 10:52|| Front Page Top

#4 You don't fight the lefts suppression of our freedom of speech with more restrictions on freedom of speech.

At this rate there will rapidly come a time where you fight the left's suppression of speech with ball ammunition.

Posted by AlanC 2016-06-18 11:07|| 2016-06-18 11:07|| Front Page Top

#5 Arguably the alarmists are doing far more damage.

Posted by Iblis 2016-06-18 11:49|| 2016-06-18 11:49|| Front Page Top

09:43 Mullah Richard
09:27 Warthog
09:11 Mercutio
09:07 AlmostAnonymous5839
08:52 Matt
08:24 Matt
08:20 SteveS
07:43 Procopius2k
07:42 BrerRabbit
07:42 Procopius2k
07:39 Procopius2k
07:36 Procopius2k
07:35 Procopius2k
07:34 trailing wife
07:31 Procopius2k
07:30 NN2N1
07:22 NN2N1
07:18 trailing wife
07:14 Richard Aubrey
07:10 NN2N1
07:09 Besoeker
07:03 NN2N1
06:58 NN2N1
06:58 Besoeker