Rogue Atty Generals using power of office to interrogate private companies on global warming. AG Marty Jackley weighs in

Pat Powers

What do you do when members of your group go rogue, and begin an inquisition against those of us out there who might not be on the same page on climate change theories?

Treating climate change as an absolute, unassailable fact, instead of what it is—an unproven, controversial scientific theory—a group of state attorneys general have announced that they will be targeting any companies that challenge the catastrophic climate change religion.

Speaking at a press conference on March 29, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said, “The bottom line is simple: Climate change is real.” He went on to say that if companies are committing fraud by “lying” about the dangers of climate change, they will “pursue them to the fullest extent of the law.”

The coalition of 17 inquisitors are calling themselves “AGs United for Clean Power.” The coalition consists of 15 state attorneys general (California, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington State), as well as the attorneys general of the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands. Sixteen of the seventeen members are Democrats, while the attorney general for the Virgin Islands, Claude Walker, is an independent.

The inquisitors are threatening legal action and huge fines against anyone who declines to believe in an unproven scientific theory.

and..

Fortunately, there are other state attorneys general who understand the importance of the rule of law as opposed to what they say is an “ambition to use the law to silence voices with which we disagree.” Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt and Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange said they would not be joining this coalition:

Reasonable minds can disagree about the science behind global warming, and disagree they do. This scientific and political debate is healthy and should be encouraged. It should not be silenced with threats of criminal prosecution by those who believe that their position is the only correct one and that all dissenting voices must therefore be intimidated and coerced into silence. It is inappropriate for State Attorneys General to use the power of their office to attempt to silence core political speech on one of the major policy debates of our time.

Read it all here.

I had a note into South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley on this, as it represents a significant policy issue that the National Attorney Generals group that Marty serves as chairman of has yet to address.

Marty has always been a level head in maintaining, fighting for, and upholding the rights of South Dakotans in the face of burdensome laws and an overbearing federal government.  Our Attorney General has fought the EPA on their environmental activism.

In response to the issue, this evening, Attorney General Jackley provided that “The South Dakota Attorney General’s Office has been involved in joint AG discussions on this matter, but we have chosen not to participate in any litigation at this time based on the current facts and evidence,” said Jackley.

So, while other area states are going whole hog after the issue, as far as South Dakota is concerned, the current facts and evidence aren’t there to litigate against climate change disbelievers.

57 thoughts on “Rogue Atty Generals using power of office to interrogate private companies on global warming. AG Marty Jackley weighs in”

  1. Liberals like freedom, as long as it is the freedom to impose their will on others. This is “1984” type stuff-think as we do or we’ll punish you! I work in the people’s republic of Minnesota, and I’ve known for a long time that the state has more than it’s fair share of idiots, from the governor on down.

  3. This is not about stopping global warming, but all about control of the masses and wealth redistribution across the globe. Don’t forget that several years ago we were all told to believe in global cooling. Fact check – the world has always gone through cycles of global cooling and warming and continues to do so. If the global warming enthusiasts were really, honestly concerned about this issue, they would insist that all countries, even developing ones, get on board with these restrictions etc. That just proves the real agenda is not global warming but simple control. If Obama was clearly concerned about this, he wouldn’t be jetting (sometimes with another jet for his family at the same time) all over on his vacations and fund raising junkets; he alone emits more carbon footprint than most other people in their lifetimes.

    1. — Tell me what entity is behind this unbelievably huge worldwide conspiracy..

      Can you sir, or any denier give the list of scientific organizations or institutions that agree with you all? Can you give ONE? Have you seen the list that disagrees? Do you have more or more accurate info. than NASA and the D.O.D.?

      Have you heard anyone suggest not driving or flying?

        1. John Coleman is not a scientist, he’s a TV weatherman – so unless you trust Phil Schreck to explain the role of dark energy in the rate of expansion of the universe, I think you could probably find a more reputable source. Heck, even the Weather Channel which Mr. Coleman founded has disavowed his statements.

          1. No matter which side of the issue you fall on, how much of your paycheck do you want to keep. The Bernie people believe that it is fine to only keep 10% of their paycheck to pay for all this utopia created by the government. Free this, free that. I am here from the government and here to save you. Ask the people on the Colorado river how that worked out for them when the EPA let lose that mine water or the land owners around the controlled burns set by the government that get out of control. Do you really believe that it will stop at the “rich” people to pay for all this, ha ha. Good luck with that.

            1. Interesting! I don’t really care for Yahoo News or AFP, but I do believe the reporting in your article is generally fact-based. I did a bit more looking and found a more scientific (read: dull) article on the same study:

              “The climate models simulate pre-industrial precipitation variability reasonably well but simulate much stronger wet and dry anomalies during the twentieth century than those found in the reconstruction. This does not necessarily mean the mechanisms driving precipitation changes in climate models are wrong. The explanation for this could be that the global warming is not yet strong enough to trigger the changes in precipitation patterns that climate models simulate”, reports Charpentier Ljungqvist”

              http://phys.org/news/2016-04-large-variations-precipitation-millennium.html

              What I gather is that current precipitation modelling is missing some factors, and this study points out that we still have to figure out what’s wrong to improve those models for modelling future precipitation/drought events. The study isn’t really saying much about climate change itself, just that our predictions based on some modelling for precip might be off… or might be right, given a bit more temperature increase.

          3. Who probably has a lot more education than you, harebrain. Just because the Weather Channel agrees with the theory doesn’t mean that the discussion is over.

            1. The question was asked to provide scientific papers refuting climate change. Had the question been “provide ONE example of a TV weatherman who refutes climate change theory”, I would agree with you.

        2. Sir, read my comment again, if you can respond please do so, if you cannot don’t insult me with that kind of foolish deflection..

          Is there ONE denier that can factually respond to my comment? No there is NOT….

          “scientific organizations or institutions that agree with you all? Can you give ONE? Have you seen the list that disagrees? Do you have more or more accurate info. than NASA and the D.O.D.?”—….There is not one source any of you can post that has not been shredded and shown as garbage spewed for profit to the willfully ignorant..

          1. First and foremost, the statistic for scientists agreeing with the “consensus” is 97%. That number is bogus and can be found in an article by Ian Tuttle at National Review in October, 2015. In general it is taken from a statistic that was a two question survey.
            From a Forbes magazine article in February 2013: Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies.” Also, “The survey results show geoscientists (also known as earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims.” And this excerpt may be interesting: “Another interesting aspect of this new survey is that it reports on the beliefs of scientists themselves rather than bureaucrats who often publish alarmist statements without polling their member scientists. We now have meteorologists, geoscientists and engineers all reporting that they are skeptics of an asserted global warming crisis, yet the bureaucrats of these organizations frequently suck up to the media and suck up to government grant providers by trying to tell us the opposite of what their scientist members actually believe.

            People who look behind the self-serving statements by global warming alarmists about an alleged “consensus” have always known that no such alarmist consensus exists among scientists. Now that we have access to hard surveys of scientists themselves, it is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.”
            There are all kinds of lists available of scientists who are skeptical. In an effort to crush them, they are called “deniers”. Rather than accept the fact that the facts do not match their model, the alarmists had to change their concern from “global warming” to “climate change”.

            1. Rather than accept the fact that the facts do not match their model, the alarmists had to change their concern from “global warming” to “climate change”.

              This is demonstrably false. Climate change and global warming are two different things. Global warming is the net world temperature increase over time. Climate change is what happens to the world and/or various regions around the world when global warming occurs. There is no dispute anywhere in science on these facts, and “they” didn’t change anything. This is just a red herring to dupe people into thinking there is some sort of nefarious plot by “alarmists” (which is another baiting term, no?)

              1. There are very few people who will tell you that the climate does not change. However in the past the alarm it said that it was global warming. And we are in a demonstrable e time period in which the temperatures have not been increasing. I believe it’s going on 19 years. The alarmist had to change the problem from global warming to climate change.The fact of the matter is that the climate has changed ever since the earth was formed. The question is whether it is caused by mankind. There is very little proof to show that is mankind. And it also appears that there is not a consensus as some people like to claim. Go look at the studies that I referenced earlier.

                1. Dude, seriously. NOBODY claims that climate doesn’t change. NOBODY “changed” global warming to climate change. They’re different things!

                  The salient points are:
                  1. What is the rate and severity of the change in climate due to increasing global warming?
                  2. Is global warming due to the activities of humans, and by how much?

                  Go ahead and argue those two points, present studies (not TV weatherman anecdotes), and have at it. It does no good to make stuff up though – no one credible is conflating global warming with climate change.

                  1. Dude, maybe you are rather young and don’t remember. I do. This is from NASA, someone I believe you believe. “But global warming became the dominant popular term in June 1988, when NASA scientist James E. Hansen had testified to Congress about climate, specifically referring to global warming. He said: “global warming has reached a level such that we can ascribe with a high degree of confidence a cause and effect relationship between the greenhouse effect and the observed warming.””
                    Whether you want to admit it or not, “global warming” was the term used pretty much until the earth did not follow the models. This is from Newsmax, you can either believe it or not. “The term climate change came into wider use around 2002, perhaps because of a secret memo to President George W. Bush’s administration written by Republican pollster and strategist Frank Luntz. A 2014 Yale University report said Luntz conducted focus group sessions looking at the topic and suggested shortly before the 2002 elections that Republicans, who were trying to downplay the threat of global warming, replace that with the less-threatening term “climate change.” So, I guess we can blame Bush for the expanded use of the term. BTW, I noticed that you do not refute the points made about how many people actually believe in this hoax.

                    1. Uh, yeah. See, NASA never says what you claim. Read it again. It’s right there in your own quote.

                      The place where it started you DID happen to get right – Luntz, a Republican, conflated the two because he thought “climate change” was less scary sounding than “global warming”. Climate scientists actually distinguish between the two. They are decidedly NOT interchangeable, and NO SCIENTIST has ever conflated or confused the two.

                    2. Point number 1: In science there is indeed a difference in “climate change” and “global warming”. Point number 2: The term “global warming” was in use until the term was changed to “climate change” in the early 2000’s. The change is what is used by common usage and that, my friend is what I have to go by. BTW, ask 100 people and I bet most will see the term as being interchangeable. Point number 3: I did not say NASA used the term. The quote was from the NASA website. You also keep missing the point that the scientists do not agree with their organizations. You keep asking if I can name any scientists or organizations who do not believe in “climate change” which in the common lexicon has been changed from “global warming”. I have done so. BTW, about your two questions about global warming. The answer is no. Human caused global warming is a hoax. The data is there if you want to believe it. We have also seen that the people perpetrating this hoax have lied in order to make their point. And the hockey stick guy has been discredited.

              2. You’all must not be very old, because before it was climate warming, climate change, it was the world is going to get colder. You can ask a poll or a survey with leading questions to make it fit whatever you want it to say. If you all believe in this climate change so strongly, then how come so many of them that push it so hard fly around the country in jets like there was no tomorrow to take a vacation? Two jets go everywhere the leading voice on this goes, so how much changing is that causing? Maybe they should lead by example and not travel soo much if they really believed in their cause.

                1. Plus, follow the money, who stands to gain by all this climate change hoopla? People with deep pockets. Who stands to lose the most? People with low incomes.

            2. Give a list of scientific organizations or institutions that agree with you all? Can you give ONE? Where is the list?

              Have you seen the list that disagrees? Do you have more or more accurate info. than NASA and the D.O.D.?”—…
              If I wanted to I could within 10 minutes debunk any claim or any source made here— I have tired of doing that… There is no more reason to waste time trying convince deniers than spending time on flat – Earthers…they are both the same.

              I have never gotten a response to—” Have you seen the list that disagrees” ( with deniers”? Why? Because they know how long the list is..

              I have never gotten anything but ignorant deflections from asking ” Name ONE scientific organizations or institutions that agree with you all? Does that not tell you people anything?

            3. “First and foremost, the statistic for scientists agreeing with the “consensus” is 97%. That number is bogus and can be found in an article by Ian Tuttle at National Review in October, 2015”.—- “Ian Tuttle at National ReviewI”? — Wow!!!!- You make my point. What are the scientific credentials of Tuttle? That ‘s what you have to try to prove something? Do you not know yours and his argument has been debunked for years?—- “general it is taken from a statistic that was a two question survey.”—- You haven’t a clue as to what you are talking about.. You don’t even know that the 97% is the average of at least 3 respected surveys and responses from scientists in the cliimatology field from around the world….Most deniers know not to claim the 97% is bogus any more just like they know not to use Heartland Institute and a slew of other sources that have long been debunked….

              Give me the sources you use that has more access to scientific info. than NASA and the D.O.D……then give me the list I have asked for…….Why can you not do that?
              —————————-
              You guys will love this link and probably agree with it….. I would bet all those buying flat-Earth would agree with the deniers…. You are all from the same gene pool…

              https://www.loc.gov/rr/scitech/SciRefGuides/flatearth.html

              1. Try Google. That is where I got the information. I remember some of these articles and find the reason why is because they were published some time ago. I believe I even told you what the publications are. I have included the important quotes from the article. And I have given you the information. You just choose to ignore it.

  4. Ah, they all democrats save for one, obviously they are wrong and hate America.

  5. “He went on to say that if companies are committing fraud by “lying” about the dangers of climate change, they will “pursue them to the fullest extent of the law.”– Isn’t “fraud” illegal?

  7. I have never been more convinced that Mark Mickelson will not be elected governor of SD than I am today.

  8. Let’s forget the merits of climate change (no matter one’s view).

    Name another instance where failure to accept a “fact” become grounds for criminal prosecution?

    I don’t know whether to characterize this as Orwellian or Stalinist but it certainly isn’t American. Further, it is bizarre in how the AG’s present it. They don’t even attempt to hide this isn’t about wrong-doing under normal criminal standards but about not assenting to a scientific theory (or fact in their eyes) for which they have no particular skill to assess.

    1. Well, that’s just wrong. This isn’t about accepting “fact”, it’s about lying to the public and investors about the impact of their business practices under current and future clean air rules. Peabody Energy failed to disclose to their investors such impacts in their public statements and instead suppressed internal findings that showed much greater losses to their business under the proposed EPA rules. Since most of these companies are multi-state and multi-national, it only makes sense for the states AGs to put their heads together and share information regarding these findings.

      They’re not suing companies for “not believing” in climate change. They’re investigating whether or not these companies are lying to the public about what those impacts are/may be.

      1. Your example is apples and oranges.

        Misleading on impact of a rule is not what these AG’s are proposing to criminalize. Nice try if your intent was to deceive. Under your standard, law enforcement should be at your door.

        1. I dunno, man. When you say, “Misleading on impact of a rule is not what these AG’s are proposing to criminalize”, and I compare that to the actual press release…

          “The participating states are exploring working together on key climate change-related initiatives, such as ongoing and potential investigations into whether fossil fuel companies misled investors and the public on the impact of climate change on their businesses.”

          …I have little fear of law enforcement showing up anytime soon.

          Besides, Peabody Energy settled for EXACTLY this reason. They mislead the public and investors:

          The world’s largest publicly-traded coal company has agreed to make fuller public disclosures about the risks climate change poses to its business in a settlement of charges that it misled investors and the public.

          Peabody Energy (BTU) reached the settlement after a two-year investigation found the St. Louis-based company’s public statements about the potential economic impact of climate change didn’t always square with the firm’s internal financial projections, the New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said Monday.

          http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2015/11/09/peabody-energy-climate-settlement/75445914/

          My intent is not to deceive at all – my intent is merely to point out that what y’all are arguing against isn’t actually what’s happening. Feel free to argue about whether or not man-made emissions are increasing the rate of global warming and what (if any) impact that will have on climate. Arguing whether or not energy companies are being “forced” to believe anything is silly – those companies are simply being “forced” to disclose what their internal studies show instead of lying about those studies to keep their stock prices afloat.

  9. Explain why Mickelson won’t be elected governor, and then tell us the last time a west river candidate was elected governor.

  10. Why in the wide world of sports is Mickelson wading into bills that he has no depth in? The water way bill while valiant, is out of his wheel house and is making enemies of constituent groups that are stirred up enough to pick sides. Not smart in a close primary in my opinion.

    1. Out of his wheel house? He is more knowledgeable in that subject than most. Taking a stand for what you believe is called leadership.

  11. Good question @ 9:21. I’ll try to answer from my point of view:

    1) Leadership is just that, leading.
    2) Mickelson recognizes the changes coming to agriculture whether we want it or not. Leadership anticipates the consequences of changes coming and plans for it.
    3) Liberals want to change the world in their view. Conservatives only look to the government when it can mitigate the negative or unintended consequences of change that is coming. This waterway bill is a way we can be out-front on an issue and have both strong agriculture and clean water. Win-win in my mind.

  12. Maybe we should accept reality and admit that the republicans biggest industry supporters paid for “scientists” aren’t legitimate. Outside of those industry “scientists” there IS consensus, despite your denial and protests that climate change is real, man made and a significant threat to our way of life. By not accepting responsibility and a willingness to adjust your actions, you are giving your children and grandchildren a death sentence so you can live exorbitantly.

    1. I have a yard full of glacial moraine left behind when the Laurentide Ice sheet retreated in an incident of global warming which started 20,000 years ago and had nothing to do with fossil fuels. Everybody east river has to deal with those rocks. The earth is not as warm now as it was 5000 years ago during the Holocene Optimum, As for CO2, atmospheric CO2 was 10X higher during the Cretaceous Period than it is today. No humans had anything to do with that, either.
      This “humans cause global warming” thing is bunk. In the 4-5 billion year history of the planet it has warmed and cooled repeatedly. Humans have only been around for the last 200,000 years. We’re a blip. We just got here.

    2. How many of the scientists who keep espousing global warming get paychecks to confirm “facts”? If you are in a university and it gets a gob of grant money to do research, which side do you think the research comes down on?

    3. Maybe you should take more time and research how climate change isn’t as scary as you think. What happens when a volcano erupts? Guess what goes into the atmosphere? Teaching our children to be self reliant is one way we help your cause, but we surely know global warming is a great way to scare people. I even read an article about taxes being put on meat because the animals fart and release methane gases into the air….really? Thankfully MJ didn’t buy into this nonsense.

    4. Do you admit that the outrageous, out-of-control spending of the current dufus-in-chief is a death sentence for the freedom or our children and grandchildren?

  13. To think that our own government wants to use the threat (promise actually) of fines and legal action against anyone or any company that does not buy into a certain thought process is truly scary. I’m sorry, but the “it’s my way or the highway (now translated by the government as it’s my way or jail or bankruptcy) is not the way our nation was ever meant to operate, and it should scare every sane person.

    1. Except that’s not actually what this is about. It’s about certain corporations who MAY possess scientific research of their own which points to the role of human activity contributing to climate change, and then suppressing that information. It’s more like the tobacco companies who knew that smoking caused cancer and disease through their very own research, but then suppressed that research so they could stay on the money train and pretend they weren’t responsible for the deaths of millions.

      Even still, companies like ExxonMobil have already admitted they’ve had research that indicates carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels are contributing to an increase in greenhouse gases for decades. I don’t thin the AGs will go after those guys since they’ve been fairly up front about it (once word got out), but rather anything ‘new’ that may come to light. I also think this move by these AGs is more bark than bite – just share what you know, so we’re all more informed and can create sensible policy going forward based on ALL research. The threat of lawsuits is just the bad cop routine in a much larger narrative.

      1. Yeah, ExxonMobil cooperates and what does it get them? After they quit contributing to Hillary’s foundation, she calls for climate change activists to investigate their business practices. This company is finding that cooperating with the loons will only have them turn on them. The AG’s will eventually come for them as well.

        1. And you don’t find it funny that the only reason they cooperated was because they got caught with their hand in the cookie jar? Up til that point, ExxonMobil were fine with continuing to lie to the public about what they knew was happening.

  14. So when will wind farms be charged with violations of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act?

  15. So when will everyone that hits a bird with their car be charged with violations of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act too?

    The facts are the number of birds killed by cars and trucks on the nation’s highways are 50 to 100 million a year. Those statistics were cited in reports published by the National Institute for Urban Wildlife and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The number of birds that are impacted as a result of collisions with wind turbines is an extremely small fraction of human-related avian fatalities. About 2-4 birds per wind-powered megawatt are lost annually as a result of U.S wind energy generation. That’s less than 200,000-400,000 birds per year based on current installed wind capacity, according to the most recent analysis of data from 109 post-construction studies performed at 71 facilities across the United States.

    Glass Windows cause 100 to 900+ million bird deaths a year, so if you are really worried about birds we should make windows illegal too, or are you just making a biased statement.

  16. The mainstream media seems to have only one view of global warming or climate change. I have found a newspaper that has another view which I like: environmentandclimate-news.org. I like one anonymous’es opinion but not another anonymous’es opinion. Why not use your own name, or a pseudonym like polar bear or penguin.

  17. At least the legal discovery aspect of lawsuits would be interesting, as “both sides” of the issue would have to provide detailed testimony and evidence in courts of law.

    ExxonMobil used to be a major contributor to the Clinton Foundation, as well as a sponsor of the annual meetings of the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI). But as the foundation became inundated by adverse publicity, ExxonMobil reportedly stopped giving it money.

    It’s an unlikely coincidence that the former Secretary Clinton turned on the company last fall, claiming it should be investigated for giving grants to warming-skeptic organizations.

    And now, here we are…

Comments are closed.