Silencing Dissent

Climate alarmists follow the Tobacco Control playbook: Twenty alarmist climate scientists have written a letter to President Obama urging him to use RICO laws to crush dissent by climate skeptics. Excerpt from letter:

We appreciate that you are making aggressive and imaginative use of the limited tools available to you in the face of a recalcitrant Congress. One additional tool – recently proposed by Senator Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)4% – is a RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) investigation of corporations and other organizations that have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, as a means to forestall America’s response to climate change. The actions of these organizations have been extensively documented in peerreviewed academic research (Brulle, 2013) and in recent books including: Doubt is their Product (Michaels, 2008), Climate Cover-Up (Hoggan & Littlemore, 2009), Merchants of Doubt (Oreskes & Conway, 2010), The Climate War (Pooley, 2010), and in The Climate Deception Dossiers (Union of Concerned Scientists, 2015). We strongly endorse Senator Whitehouse’s call for a RICO investigation.

The methods of these organizations are quite similar to those used earlier by the tobacco industry. A RICO investigation (1999 to 2006) played an important role in stopping the tobacco industry from continuing to deceive the American people about the dangers of smoking. If corporations in the fossil fuel industry and their supporters are guilty of the misdeeds that have been documented in books and journal articles, it is imperative that these misdeeds be stopped as soon as possible so that America and the world can get on with the critically important business of finding effective ways to restabilize the Earth’s climate, before even more lasting damage is done.

Audrey Silk on the RICO case against the tobacco industry:

On the federal level, in a racketeering (RICO) case brought against the tobacco industry by the U.S. Dept. of Justice, U.S. District Court Judge Gladys Kessler ruled in 2006 that the industry had lied and ordered “corrective statements” as part of the punishment. But it took until now for an agreement to be reached on the content and placement (top newspapers and on major TV networks).

No issue is taken with the prescribed statements about primary smoking. That ship has sailed. What’s at stake here are the ordered statements about secondhand smoke.

They begin with the major tobacco companies having to state that they “deliberately deceived the public about the health effects of secondhand smoke,” followed by a “The truth is…” list of effects that end with Carmona Who?’s words, “There is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke.”

That the tobacco companies have filed an appeal over the wording is irrelevant at the moment. Two branches of government acting in concert have just directed that not only will they not hear of disagreement but that one must be forced to speak the government line. No less than a state religion has been established right under your “smoke-free” noses. The gospel is only what the government’s Anti-Smoker Church says it is and you have no choice but to adhere to it.

Mark Steyn:

Frustrated at the failure of global-warming alarmism to shift an apathetic public, Big Climate could do several things. Most obviously, they could resume public debate with those who disagree with them, win the argument and thereby persuade the people – which is how change is effected in self-governing societies.

Instead, twenty of them have written to the President to demand that the most powerful government on earth use the RICO laws to prosecute climate “skeptics” and “deniers”. Instead of winning the debate, it’s easier to criminalize it.

About Frank Davis

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to Silencing Dissent

  1. c777 says:

    Here’s the opinion of one of the scientists on travesty Trenbearth an Co’s hit list of those to be silenced.

    Pure Lysenkoism, soviet style.

    • nisakiman says:

      The rather depressing thing that comes out of that link is that while they are crying foul at RICO being used against climate change ‘denialists’, they seem to think it was quite acceptable that it was used to silence those who disagreed with the Tobacco Control lobby.

      Double standards anyone?

      • jaxthefirst says:

        The Tobacco Control playbook looks something like this: (1) pay scientists to produce studies supporting your claims; (2) develop an intricate web of PR experts, front groups and government “advisers” to spread doubt about the real science and to influence policy decisions; (3) relentlessly attack your opponents and their customers.

        With just a few changes (bold emphasis mine), this “playbook” applies just as equally to the anti-smoking movement – more so, in fact, than it does to the tobacco companies or, indeed, climate change sceptics/fossil-fuel companies. In fact, it’s pretty much the template used by each and every little group of worms with a particular axe to grind or a favourite hobby-horse to ride. If RICO can be applied to climate change sceptics etc, it must therefore be equally – if not more – applicable to Tobacco Control and, more importantly, their Big Pharma paymasters.

        • harleyrider1978 says:


          We need to think carefully how to phrase our questions.

          Just as Mike pointed out they word their polls to get the outcome they want and here they openly admit as much:

          Reliable Opinion Pollsters Public opinion polls are an effective way to deliver the message to politicians that the public supports strong enforcement. The most effective messengers to deliver that news are professional pollsters. Of course, professional poll takers cost money, so if this is not possible, we can conduct our own surveys. We need to think carefully how to phrase our questions. “Do you think smokers should be heavily fined for smoking in public places?” may, for instance, get less support than the question “Do you think our law protecting children and other nonsmokers from smoke in public places should be properly enforced?” While the first question focuses on punishing the smoker, the second fixes on enforcing an existing law. Stronger still may be questions that also focus on the rights of children and other nonsmokers to be protected from smoke.

      • Frank Davis says:

        It’s one of the things that annoys me a lot about the climate sceptics, that their scepticism vanishes when it comes to tobacco, and they turn into alarmists.

        • margo says:

          That’s kind of the point I’ve been trying to make on this blog for a long time – the linking of the two and the ways each side makes that link – very curious indeed.

  2. harleyrider1978 says:

    Frank in short simple terms in America the left has made criminals out of non criminals when the real criminals are the ones politically making criminals of us non criminals.

    We all know the climate debacle is the Major part of their socialist world takeover and have known for a few decades now.

    Judge Kessler herself was co-author of the federal book on scientific evidence and she knows full well the SHS junk science isn’t even admissible evidence.

    ” Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence: Third Edition

    This sorta says it all

    These limits generally are based on assessments of health risk and calculations of concentrations that are associated with what the regulators believe to be negligibly small risks. The calculations are made after first identifying the total dose of a chemical that is safe (poses a negligible risk) and then determining the concentration of that chemical in the medium of concern that should not be exceeded if exposed individuals (typically those at the high end of media contact) are not to incur a dose greater than the safe one.

    So OSHA standards are what is the guideline for what is acceptable ”SAFE LEVELS”

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Kessler is the lefts TOP GUN Federal Judge on smoking issues. She was the RICO judge and also the same judge over EPAs 1992-3 shs junk study. She tried to use a technicality saying that as long as EPA was merely using the study as a reference piece Federal Judge Osteen had no authority over it. Meaning as long as EPA never used the study for regulatory rule making the Judges decision has no authority,so in effect Big Tobacco had won because we all know EPA had every intention under the Clinton Administration to use the study along with the RADON ACT of 1989 to put smoking bans in force from the Federal level. The radon Act was created to give EPA a side door into indoor air quality where OSHA has total Jurisdiction.

      The Radon act got buried into a trash bin and has never been used after the SHS defeat.

      They were going to claim Synergistic effects between tobacco smoke and Radon exposure along with anything else they could toss into the soup mix. The same way they did in their junk direct smoking studies like asbestos and smoking……..

      Now that we know congress is finally doing their jobs and going after these bastards its great news. We can thank a lot of it to the INSPECTOR GENERALS office for exposing the graft in grant money and other misdeeds of the leftists in the federal health depts.

      Right now its apparent the only ones guilty of RICO are Big Pharma and their Rats in government. Judge Kessler deserves a real nice cell in Ft Leavenworth right along with glantz and all the rest of these prohibitionists. Id sure love to dig into Judge Kesslers financial records in America and abroad………..Id bet we find quite a haul over the years.

  3. Smoking Lamp says:

    Dissent is silenced in many ways. These include direct and indirect means. Direct means include censoring comments that promote an alternate view (for example blocking posts, claiming dissenting posts are spam, removing posts, etc. as seen in NOLA during the move for the smoking ban). Another variation is posting an article but not allowing comments (comments are often always off or turned off when they start to disagree). Indirect means include: posting false or manipulated data to support your cause. This is enhanced by mass press releases, paying media outlets to run stories, etc. The example here is found in all of the purported news reports that claim the benefits of smoking bans. No balanced coverage, just apologies.

    The use of false and misleading reports is the mainstay of tobacco control. Right now, it’s the stories claiming links between both smoking and second hand smoke with diabetes. Of course the actual study does not say there is a causal link, it suggests that if the link was proven that there would be a result. This isn’t science and the news reports covering it aren’t journalism. Both are fabrications and deception used to shape opinion and exercise social control.

  4. Some French bloke says:

    Don’t know yet if I would qualify as a skeptic or an out-and-out denialist on the climate issue, but at any rate, beyond the question of temperatures rising actually or artificially, I’m all for combating the false perception of a so-called scientific community,“… that scattered elite known globally as Science, which we regard, in desperation, as standing guard over the human race” (Jérôme Deshusses). This naive view denounced by the Swiss author in 1978 forms the psychological basis for the wide acceptance of newfangled claims, themselves based on flimsy or manipulated evidence. While the consensus lasts, that perception will at the same time function as a self-reinforcing delusion, and wolves in Care Bear’s clothing can have their way.

    Corruption will taint and dim any degree of intellectual brilliance, (not to mention that the lesser scientists-hirelings involved are unlikely to be particularly brilliant to start with), and one way of looking at the whole contrived issue of 2°+ Celcius bringing Life on Earth to an end could be as one gigantic ploy designed to bring maximum discredit on the ecological cause generally.
    This corruption goes far deeper, and its motives are even darker than people like Ed West (Castello2) seem to be able to imagine for the time being, and as a result a subtly devious means of hijacking their legitimate concerns has been devised.
    From some of his past comments, Castello2 seems well aware of the dishonesty of antismoking claims, but on the other hand he probably failed to ponder why should Big Oil shake in their boots at the prospect of being demonised to the extent Big Tobacco has been for decades? After all they’ve been, like anybody else, able to witness tobacco sales being divided by three over these decades, while in the same period prices in some countries increased by a factor of ten. TobCoMs were even allowed to raise their official margins in the wake of the Master Settlement Agreement, so that up till now, all interested parties in this scam have managed to “strangle the smoking goose and still harvest its golden eggs” (Don Oakley), leaving the underdogs of the industry and smokers to suffer alone through job losses, stigmatisation, and the State-sponsored racketeering of extortionate taxes.

  5. smokingscot says:

    O/T Syriza’s won and could get 145 seats (out of 300) in parliament.

    No news – yet – as to whether Varoufakis has retained his seat.

    Nail biting’s about whether New Dawn’s gonna come third – or PASOK.

    • nisakiman says:

      Heh! Golden Dawn and Syryza would make interesting bedfellows!

      • nisakiman says:

        That is, of course Syriza.

        However, the half kilo of wine I had with my kotosouvli was excellent, even if it did scramble my brain a tad. :)

        • nisakiman says:

          Totally off topic, I’m in Patras at the mo, and standing on my balcony I’m watching the most amazing pyrotechnics in the sky as the thunder rolls in. And it’s still 30°C at 11.15 pm.

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s