All Solar, Et Al, In 12 Years?

[Randolph Kinney]

I'm not in favor of going after deniers such as yourself---cluelessness is not criminal

However, your cutting and pasting apparently missed the point of the potential prosecution. What was construed as possible criminality was not their denying but holding back info that would affect their stock price--more of a potential financial crime of misleading stockholders. Not surprised you overlooked that.

Nowhere was that mentioned in all the press coverage of the scientists petitioning the president to criminally prosecute climate deniers under the RICO statutes.


The fossil-fuel industry’s campaign to mislead the American people

Sheldon Whitehouse, a Democrat, represents Rhode Island in the Senate.

Fossil fuel companies and their allies are funding a massive and sophisticated campaign to mislead the American people about the environmental harm caused by carbon pollution.

Their activities are often compared to those of Big Tobacco denying the health dangers of smoking. Big Tobacco’s denial scheme was ultimately found by a federal judge to have amounted to a racketeering enterprise.

The Big Tobacco playbook looked something like this: (1) pay scientists to produce studies defending your product; (2) develop an intricate web of PR experts and front groups to spread doubt about the real science; (3) relentlessly attack your opponents.

Thankfully, the government had a playbook, too: the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO. In 1999, the Justice Department filed a civil RICO lawsuit against the major tobacco companies and their associated industry groups, alleging that the companies “engaged in and executed — and continue to engage in and execute — a massive 50-year scheme to defraud the public, including consumers of cigarettes, in violation of RICO.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...a2c448-0574-11e5-8bda-c7b4e9a8f7ac_story.html

You twist this to suit your limiting understanding of RICO and what these global warming scientist crazies wanted the president to do.

It fits your opinion postings too. No fact, no reality, just your unreal opinion.

 

[Pittsburgh Pete]

Nowhere was that mentioned in all the press coverage of the scientists petitioning the president to criminally prosecute climate deniers under the RICO statutes.

You gotta get away from your strictly RW sources. It was prominent in the story I read immediately after the potential prosecution was announced. Also, it was a New York state matter that had nothing to do with the President. Nice kneejerk bashing of the President. Did you realize he's the one behind the Starbucks red cups?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/06/s...in-new-york-over-climate-statements.html?_r=0

 

[Randolph Kinney]

You gotta get away from your strictly RW sources. It was prominent in the story I read immediately after the potential prosecution was announced. Also, it was a New York state matter that had nothing to do with the President. Nice kneejerk bashing of the President. Did you realize he's the one behind the Starbucks red cups?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/06/s...in-new-york-over-climate-statements.html?_r=0

Too bad you did not read the letter sent to Obama.

 

[Pittsburgh Pete]

So the President received a letter. What's the nexus? The New York case also has no nexus to the President. You just throw some cut and paste feces against the wall and hope it sticks. Your hatred of the President is amusing and pathetic. You harbor quite a bit of hate in your cutting and pasting soul. I feel for you.

 

[Pittsburgh Pete]

Care to cut and paste any Justice Department investigations employing the RICO act against deniers like yourself? Good luck with that!

 

[Randolph Kinney]

So the President received a letter. What's the nexus? The New York case also has no nexus to the President. You just throw some cut and paste feces against the wall and hope it sticks. Your hatred of the President is amusing and pathetic. You harbor quite a bit of hate in your cutting and pasting soul. I feel for you.

The nexus was the climate scientists wanting the president to use the RICO statutes to silence any contrary opinion or information.

It is your article that have no nexus to RICO.

 

[Randolph Kinney]

Care to cut and paste any Justice Department investigations employing the RICO act against deniers like yourself? Good luck with that!

No articles about RICO investigations against the big oil either. That does not support your claim, does it?

 

[Randolph Kinney]

For you Pete, the poll questions asked by Rasmussen:

National Survey of 1,000 U.S. Likely Voters

Conducted November 9-10, 2015
By Rasmussen Reports


1* Is the scientific debate about global warming over?


2* Should the government investigate and prosecute scientists and others including major corporations who question global warming?


NOTE: Margin of Sampling Error, +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence'

Did you notice question #2?

Can you see the nexus of that question and the letter sent to Obama?

Thursday, November 12, 2015

Global warming advocates are calling for the prosecution of groups who disagree with them, and New York State has taken it a step further by investigating Exxon Mobil for refusing to play ball with the popular scientific theory.

But 68% of Likely U.S. Voters oppose the government investigating and prosecuting scientists and others including major corporations who question global warming. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 17% favor such prosecutions. Fifteen percent (15%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Just over one-in-four Democrats (27%), however, favor prosecuting those who don’t agree with global warming. Only 11% of Republicans and 12% of voters not affiliated with either major party agree.

After all, just 24% of all voters believe the scientific debate about global warming is over, although that’s up from 20% in July of last year. Unchanged is the 63% who say that debate is not done yet. Thirteen percent (13%) are not sure.

Among voters who believe scientists have made up their minds about global warming, one-in-four (24%) favor prosecuting those who question that theory, but 64% are opposed.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DailyNewsletter

 

[Meandering]

U.N. climate deal must unlock private funding for forests: experts


BARCELONA (Thomson Reuters Foundation) - A new global deal to curb climate change due in Paris next month must "switch on" forest protection schemes by allowing the carbon credits they produce to help meet country pledges to cut planet-warming emissions, forest experts said.

That would unlock funding from the private sector, which has so far contributed just one-tenth of the money provided to keep forests standing, said Gus Silva-Chávez of U.S.-based non-profit group Forest Trends which tracked finance flows in 13 countries.

Plant a tree, save the world.

When forests are degraded or destroyed, the carbon stored in the trees is released into the atmosphere, with deforestation accounting for 10 to 15 percent of carbon emissions worldwide.

Not all rainforest countries support the use of markets, including carbon credits, to finance forest protection. Bolivia, in particular, has been a vocal opponent at U.N. climate talks.

But that is "significantly short" of estimates indicating at least $20 billion per year is needed to reduce global deforestation by 50 percent, Forest Trends said in a new report on REDD+ finance.

"The pledges right now at the global level are insufficient," said Silva-Chávez.

Wait, what? No electricity but let them keep cutting down trees? Are we "saving the world for them too?

Brazil and Indonesia - home to some of the world's largest tropical forest cover - together received nearly two-thirds of the $6 billion in funding pledged or committed to that group of countries.

By the end of 2014, two-thirds of all committed funds had been paid out, most of the money going directly to government agencies in the recipient countries.

“Donor countries are increasingly requiring REDD+ countries to demonstrate the concrete progress they are making in tackling deforestation, and then transferring funding if and when positive results are achieved," Brian Schaap, who works on the REDD+ finance program at Forest Trends, said in a statement.

"If countries don’t reduce their deforestation, then they don’t get the donor money."

Bribes and graft? I thought; "we don't negotiate with terrorists."

While more finance is needed to help tropical forest nations implement schemes that generate carbon credits from avoiding deforestation and the emissions it causes, the Paris climate summit is unlikely to see large-scale promises for this purpose, Silva-Chávez said.

 

[Pittsburgh Pete]

Heck, the President might get a letter to look into the nefarious cutting and pasting of a clueless San Diego appraiser (I haven't written it yet but am contemplating it ) So has the Justice Department done anything in response to the letter? No. So what the heck is your hateful point anyway?