Justice Dept Refers “Climate Deniers” To FBI For Investigation

Wrongthing needs to be prosecuted

(CNS News) 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.

This comes in regards to questions from climahypocrite Sheldon Whitehouse, a major league member of the Cult of Climastrology who refuses to give up his own use of fossil fuels, yet constantly rails against them.

In this case, I would assume that Whitehouse and Lynch were referring to Exxon/Shell, as those are the latest Enemies Of The State per Whitehouse and the CoC. Whitehouse complained about “climate denial apparatus that the fossil fuel industry has erected” without specifically naming the target.

Whitehouse further wanted to know if there had been any other civil cases referred by the DOJ to the FBI, which, in context of the line of questioning, was about ‘climate change’, to which Lynch said she would have to look into it. Can’t have Wrongthink, you know.

Of course, it would be great if this did create a trial, as it would be necessary to use real data, which would expose the reality of the falseness of the Cult of Climastrology. And it would be a high profile trial.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

RSS feed

You can login to comment with:

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

23 Comments

Comment by Jeffery
2016-03-10 07:17:16

Uh oh. The FBI is investigating. That means Clinton Exxon/Mobil is guilty!

 
Comment by Jeffery
2016-03-10 07:20:08

it would be great if this did create a trial, as it would be necessary to use real data, which would expose the reality the Theory of AGW of the falseness of the Cult of Climastrology.</blockquote>

Do you really believe that the mountains of evidence supporting global warming supports the notion of a scientific hoax?

 
Comment by Hank_M
2016-03-10 07:44:17

Gotta love the ever tolerant left. They’ll happily investigate you (and worse) if you do not agree with them.

They try to control how you speak and what you speak about with political correctness.
They prosecute you more severely using the label of hate crimes. And now they’ll happily litigate you if you do not believe the “correct” things.

What’s next? the great purge?

 
Comment by Dana
2016-03-10 08:17:31

Mr M asked:

What’s next? the great purge?

If they thought they could get away with it, yes.

We already have situations where universities are providing ‘safe spaces’ for Special Snowflake™ students who are traumatized by contrary opinions, so we know that the left believe that people, that victims can claim to be harmed by the thoughts and words of others, so why wouldn’t the left believe that those evildoing conservatives can and should be punished by the legal system.

Well, you know what? the left traumatizes me by their constant advocacy of taxes and programs which would make me poorer! I believe that I should be able to take Jeffrey to court, for the harm caused to me by threatening to take away some of my wealth.

 
Comment by John
2016-03-10 08:34:08

Teach this is similar to when BIG TOBACCO
Perpetrated its for profit fraud by denying the health hazards of smoking, both to smokers and others
Teach YOU are free to say what you will but making profit off lies is fraud
Heartland institute is probably the loudest shill for climate change denial they also were the loudest trying to defend big tobacco

 
Comment by Jeffery
2016-03-10 10:04:30

It’s sad, really. Once strong conservatives have become a cult of victims. Denier Bloggers, Denier commenters, Denier pundits, magazines, Denier scientists, Denier officials etc have nothing to fear! Lying has not been, nor will be, outlawed. It’s in the constitution! You can lie all you want!

But corporations are not allowed to lie to their investors. That’s what this is about. The rule of law. A concept that conservatives used to embrace.

D Boy 2: You have the freedom to take me to court (part of government, ironically) for damages. Knock yourself out.

D Boy 1 has already threatened to report me to the FDA (another part of government, ironically) for being mean to him.

 
Comment by drowningpuppies
2016-03-10 10:11:33

It’s in the constitution! You can lie all you want!

-the little guy who exaggerates often

 
Comment by Hank_M
2016-03-10 10:42:57

” That’s what this is about. The rule of law.” Says the Obama worshiping Hillary loving Jeffery. And both Barry and Hillary need to be introduced to the concept.

What this is about is free speech, free speech that you and the left no longer support.

Lies, however, are your life blood. As your chosen candidates show so clearly.

 
Comment by Dana
2016-03-10 14:39:52

Jeffrey fails to understand sarcasm:

You have the freedom to take me to court (part of government, ironically) for damages. Knock yourself out.

This is where the left fail so often: being low-testosterone milquetoasts themselves, they cannot comprehend those of us who are not, and how we might say things not seriously, but to mock them and their positions.

There used to be the playground rhyme, sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me. Now it seems as though the thin-skinned left do believe that words will hurt them, and that they ought to have the power of government available to assuage their poor hurt feelings.

I used to think that the Hurt Feelings Report Form was just a joke. Apparently I was mistaken.

 
Comment by Conservative Beaner
2016-03-10 17:41:00

Dana,

The new Lefty Thug saying is I’ll use sticks and stones to break your bones and you will always offend me.

 
Comment by Jl
2016-03-10 19:22:18

The Spanish Inquisition circa 2016. Heretics shall be prosecuted for not believing in the hoax. Scratch a liberal and you’ll find a brown-shirt. Wonder why they didn’t do this when at least 97% of scientists believed ulcers were caused by spicy food and one man stood against the meaningless “consensus”?

 
Comment by Jeffery
2016-03-10 19:33:02

Hankm,

Corporations cannot lie to their shareholders to inflate the value of the company. It may well be illegal for a fossil fuel company to act publicly as if it’s working to limit its footprint while secretly funding the denier apparatus. Investors are entitled to accurate information before deciding how to invest their hard-earned money, right?

Unless you’re a corporate officer and your lies are about company performance, you have nothing to worry about.

You can lie all you want without fear.

Do you think forcing corporations to tell the truth about their performance is violating the First Amendment?

 
Comment by drowningpuppies
2016-03-10 21:33:25

It may well be illegal for a fossil fuel company to act publicly as if it’s working to limit its footprint while secretly funding the denier apparatus.

-the little guy who exaggerates often and just makes up silly stuff

 
Comment by gitarcarver
2016-03-10 21:57:08

Do you think forcing corporations to tell the truth about their performance is violating the First Amendment?

The problem is that a scientific disagreement is not a lie.

The letter from the Congressmen is simply void of facts. The premise is “how dare a company dispute what we have said is true!’

Using the force and weight of the federal government to investigate companies who have done nothing wrong and whose only “crime” is that they disagree with the government IS a violation of the First Amendment.

 
Comment by Jeffery
2016-03-11 00:23:27

The problem is that a scientific disagreement is not a lie.

True. But there is very little scientific disagreement regarding the theory of AGW.

The problem is whether or not Exxon-Mobil downplayed what they knew about global warming to their potential investors. In 1977 one Exxon exec warned colleagues that it was clear that the Earth was warming from CO2, yet the corporation invested millions in disputing their own internal findings. Why? To protect Exxon.

This is why they’re being investigated.

 
Comment by gitarcarver
2016-03-11 00:54:36

But there is very little scientific disagreement regarding the theory of AGW.

There is great disagreement as we have seen on the pages of this blog. The fact that you and others continually try and dismiss those disagreements doesn’t mean they go away.

In 1977 one Exxon exec warned colleagues that it was clear that the Earth was warming from CO2, yet the corporation invested millions in disputing their own internal findings.

I am sure that you see the problem with your own statement there. Well, maybe you won’t. An executive offering an opinion is not science and you should know that.

Secondly, do you have any evidence that Exxon “invested millions in disputing their own findings?” Why is it that government grants to people that dispute AGW have dried up? Isn’t the government doing exactly what you claim without a shred of evidence that Exxon is doing?

This is why they’re being investigated.

Nope.

They are being investigated or threatened with investigation because they may or may not agree with the AGW people. That’s all.

BTW – the tobacco industry comparison one is interesting as the government and the states have used on 14% of the monies that were agreed to go to anti-tobacco campaigns, education and health costs on those items.

If you want to compare the tobacco case to the alleged AGW case, then I thank you for agreeing that this is not about AGW, but about the taking of money. Period.

 
Comment by david7134
2016-03-11 15:43:08

As I have said before, the climate change religion is an exact parallel to the issue we faced with cholesterol, and still do. Cholesterol has been found to be a totally innocuous element, but has been vilified as the one true cause of heart disease. No other element could possibly be killing millions of people. Then one little doctor found that inflammation, very non-specific so far, is the real culprit. For 50 years we had the same crap put out by virtually the same people as now about how we must be forced to change our lives, eat different and take statins. Then all that is disappearing. If you tried to get an article printed that was different from the “accepted” disburse, you were rejected, criticized, and if an academic, you did not advance. Same with the climate change bunk.

 
Comment by Jeffery
2016-03-11 17:38:56

There is great disagreement as we have seen on the pages of this blog.

Note I was talking of SCIENTIFIC disagreement. Of course you’ll find that commenters on a far right blog disagree with the scientific consensus, LOL. Go to an “intelligent design” blog and you’ll find that many commenters disagree with the scientific consensus on biological evolution. That doesn’t mean there’s scientific disagreement.

In the scientific community, there is little or no disagreement about the cause of the current rapid warming.

If you want to compare the tobacco case to the alleged AGW case, then I thank you for agreeing that this is not about AGW, but about the taking of money. Period.

Sorry, but you don’t get to make up rules as you go. It’s about responsibility for damages.

 
Comment by gitarcarver
2016-03-11 18:06:12

Note I was talking of SCIENTIFIC disagreement.

So was I.

In the scientific community, there is little or no disagreement about the cause of the current rapid warming.

Try paying attention and not hiding your head in the sand. There is a great deal of disagreement over the cause of warming.

Sorry, but you don’t get to make up rules as you go. It’s about responsibility for damages.

Funny, that’s what the people who launched tobacco suits said. Yet the governments who received money from the settlement have not lived up to their end of the settlement agreement.

This is about the taking and redistribution of money. Period.

 
Comment by Jeffery
2016-03-11 18:13:31

There is a great deal of disagreement over the cause of warming.

That’s great! Perhaps you could share the top few pieces of data that falsify the theory.

In fact, you are wrong.

What is your explanation for why the Earth is now warming?

 
Comment by gitarcarver
2016-03-11 20:25:12

That’s great! Perhaps you could share the top few pieces of data that falsify the theory.

This is one of your favorite tactics. “I won’t read anything that I might disagree with therefore nothing exists,” you believe..

In fact, you are wrong.

Facts are on my side.

What is your explanation for why the Earth is now warming?

Another diversion from you.

We’ve been down this path before and after listing all sorts of scientific theories,you don’t respond.

I am not going to play the game of wasting my time when your head is stuck in the sand (or somewhere else.)

The bottom line is that people of your ilk want to shut down speech that is not illegal simply because you disagree with it.

 
Comment by Jeffery
2016-03-11 22:17:43

Boo hoo. You whine that we ask you tough questions. Well, science is hard.

You refuse to offer any evidence to support your false claim. You claim the facts support you, yet you cannot offer one fact.

You don’t offer a counterproposal to the accepted theory.

The bottom line is that people of your ilk deny evidence because it runs counter to your ignorant beliefs.

CO2 that we’ve added to the atmosphere is causing the Earth to warm.

 
Comment by gitarcarver
2016-03-11 23:05:54

You whine that we ask you tough questions. Well, science is hard.

You haven’t asked any questions – hard or otherwise – that have not been answered here time and time again.

Don’t attribute your unwillingness to listen with the idea that the answers have not been given many times before.

You don’t offer a counterproposal to the accepted theory.

Once again, you have not read the answers that have been given.

With that as a given, there is a gaping hole in your logic that absent of any other theory, your theory must be correct.

That’s not logical or scientific as it presumes so much.

The bottom line is that people of your ilk deny evidence because it runs counter to your ignorant beliefs.

The bottom line is that you and your warmist friends want to stifle any arguments, beliefs and scientific findings that are contrary to what you think. Like so many on the left, you are simply interested in thought control and money.

 

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Bad Behavior has blocked 9023 access attempts in the last 7 days.