‘The Usual Suspects’ in the Persecution of Global Warming Skeptics

NY AG Eric SchneidermanNY AG Eric SchneidermanBarely two weeks after the March 29 press conference where Al Gore and a group of state attorneys general vowed to push ahead on potentially prosecuting “corporations and other organizations that have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change,” a surprising news situation developed where Wall Street Journal reporters announced they had viewed a leaked email agenda printout detailing how a small group of environmentalists were scheming “to establish in public’s mind that Exxon is a corrupt institution.”  Two days later, the Washington Free Beacon showed the printout, and other news outlets later referred to it and the environmentalist names within it, most prominently environmentalist lawyer Matt Pawa.

But Pawa is not simply a lawyer who tried to sue ExxonMobil on behalf of a small Alaskan village, and two other names in that leaked email, John Passacantando and Kert Davies, aren’t simply guys with vague former connections to Greenpeace.

All three fit the term for the type of people the police round up when a pattern of potentially illegal activity occurs: “the usual suspects.”  When it comes to the legally questionable effort to accuse skeptic climate scientists of fossil fuel industry corruption, these three apparently have a specific history of doing so for ten or twenty years.

In my 4/15 American Thinker article “Gore’s RICO-style Prosecution of Global Warming Skeptics,” I detailed how Al Gore and global warming alarmist book authors Naomi Oreskes and Ross Gelbspan basically have only one piece of so-called evidence indicting skeptic climate scientists of corporate corruption – namely, that a long ago leaked set of memos was proof of a sinister industry-wide directive where such skeptics were supposedly paid to “reposition global warming as theory rather than fact” and that a particular old public relations campaign by the coal industry sought to misinform “older, less educated males” and “younger, lower-income women.”

Matt Pawa repeated those exact words in his 2008 Kivalina v. Exxon lawsuit, (as seen in this screencapture photo) in order to make the case that the oil industry was engaged in misinformation efforts.  Whom did he cite for those phrases?  Ultimately, three out of his four sources spiral back to Ross Gelbspan.  I first detailed those problems in a 2010 Breitbart article, “Global Warming Nuisance Lawsuits Are Based on a Fatal Flaw,” which I partly reproduced recently with repaired web links at my GelbspanFiles blog.

Next, John Passacantando is not merely a former Greenpeace worker with only a vague dislike of the oil industry.  He was the co-founder of the long forgotten Ozone Action environmentalist group, which he merged into the USA arm of Greenpeace in 2000, while ascending to the position of executive director at Greenpeace USA.  An archived Ozone Action page reveals that “[a]ccording to documents obtained by Ozone Action and by Ross Gelbspan, several ICE strategies were laid out including: the repositioning of global warming as theory, not fact.”

Neither Passacantando nor Gelbspan ever disclosed whom they obtained those documents from.  Details in my 4/15 American Thinker article suggest that it might be worthwhile to investigate whether the documents came out of Al Gore’s 1991-92 Senate office.

Read rest…

Trackback from your site.

Leave a comment (newest first):

Comments (4)

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    “A clique of envoi-activists involved in racketeering efforts for over 20 years “.
    And some AG’s are hooking up with them .
    Finally exposed for the orchestrated scam it is . Global warming is good . When did they know and withhold that fact from the people ?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    David Lewis

    |

    Even if there was a campaign by the oil companies to miss inform the public, which I doubt, that is still protected by freedom of speech.

    Consider the statements by many politicians that anthropological climate change is causing an increase in droughts, floods, hurricanes, and tornadoes. That is dead wrong but protected by the freedom of speech.

    What is illegal and should be prosecuted is using tax payer funds to defraud the pubic. NOAA and NASA have done that many times by altering historical data to support the climate change movement.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    But stupid Hair Schnyter-Mahn says that fraud is not protected by freedom of speech.

    But of course Hair Schnyter-Mahn needs to go back to law school for mere erroneous statement CANNOT constitute fraud.

    In fact, you can learn all the sine qua non elements of fraud in a high school business law class.

    Maybe Hair Schnyter-Mahn should go back to high school.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    At the time some fossil fuel companies were supposed “to have known ” about the scariness of global warming the scientists of the day and lead media outlets were promoting scary global cooling . The fossil fuel companies would have been a laughing stock (or anyone else ) who spoke out against the complete hoax of global cooling . That’s right,
    just like now with the earth has a fever .
    The real conmen in the current climate caper are those who knew that warming and higher CO2 have more benefits than drawbacks . Of the two scary scenarios global cooling win hands down and as those educated to at least in kindergarten know …climate changes . Sadly the Arctic won’t be ice free anytime soon though .

    Reply

Leave a comment

Loading Disqus Comments ...

No Trackbacks.