Lynch: DOJ Looking at Prosecuting Climate Change Deniers

Citing Comparisons That Don’t Hold Water

The Global Change lobby has the weight of government, mainstream media, financially benefited academics, less developed countries, and environmental groups behind it, so there is a good deal of inertia for the small group of independent scientists to overcome. Even so, they are providing a good deal of evidence to counter the nonsense that the Global Change lobby is spewing. The newest attempt is to silence all counter arguments and to punish those who challenge the Global Change orthodoxy.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) raised the issue, drawing a comparison between possible civil action against climate change deniers and civil action that the Clinton administration pursued against the tobacco industry for claiming that the science behind the dangers of tobacco was unsettled.

“The similarities between the mischief of the tobacco industry pretending that the science of tobacco’s dangers was unsettled and the fossil fuel industry pretending that the science of carbon emissions’ dangers is unsettled has been remarked on widely, particularly by those who study the climate denial apparatus that the fossil fuel industry has erected,” Whitehouse said.

“Under President Clinton, the Department of Justice brought and won a civil RICO action against the tobacco industry for its fraud. Under President Obama, the Department of Justice has done nothing so far about the climate denial scheme,” Whitehouse added.

“A request for action by the Department of Justice has been referred by you to the FBI. My question to you is other than civil forfeitures and matters attendant to a criminal case, are there other circumstances in which a civil matter under the authority of the Department of Justice has been referred to the FBI?” he asked.

Attorney General Loretta Lynch acknowledged Wednesday that there have been discussions within the Department of Justice about possibly pursuing civil action against so-called climate change deniers.

“This matter has been discussed. We have received information about it and have referred it to the FBI to consider whether or not it meets the criteria for which we could take action on,” Lynch said at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Justice Department operations.

“Senator, thank you for raising that issue, and thank you for your work in this area. I know your commitment is deep. This matter has been discussed. We have received information about it and have referred it to the FBI to consider whether or not it meets the criteria for which we could take action on. I’m not aware of a civil referral at this time,” said Lynch.

“I will look into that and get back to you, but I’m not aware of a civil referral outside of the one that you just raised,” added Lynch.

The comparison of financially disinterested scientists who are providing clear science and the tobacco industry is ludicrous on its face, but absolutely chilling in its implications. It is more than frightening that a Senator and the Attorney General of the United States would even consider stifling the free exchange of ideas, opinions, and research under any circumstances, let alone one that could have such a huge impact on the citizens of the United States.

It is all the more outrageous given the fact that so much of what the Global Change lobby has stated and predicted has turned out to be untrue and in many cases falsified. If there is anyone that should be subject to the RICO laws it would be the Global Change lobby which has conspired and obfuscated and falsified their information so often that their projections, which are based on complex computer models rather than observable physical behavior, are a mass of confusing and conflicting data that should be rejected en toto.

Sadly, it is entirely possible that Senator Whitehouse’s proposal will rise again at a future date given the huge financial stakes that the global change scheme represents. The desired result is already known, it is only up to the scammers to invent the supporting data and to silence conflicting evidence.

Source: cnsnews.com