Democrat AGs Begin Inquisition Against ‘Climate Change Disbelievers’

[Crick]

Proof, Prove, Proven. God are you stupid. And, as fas as can be seen here, completely uneducable.

There are no proofs in the natural sciences. Anyone demanding proofs has done nothing but demonstrate they don't know what they're talking about.

I love your claim that "CONFIRM" has some definite, official, rigid definition. Unfortunately for you, that is untrue of any word in the English language. Alll English is defined by common usage. The common usage of CONFIRM looks like this:

verb (used with object)
1.
to establish the truth, accuracy, validity, or genuineness of;corroborate; verify:
This report confirms my suspicions.
2.
to acknowledge with definite assurance:
Did the hotel confirm our room reservation?
3.
to make valid or binding by some formal or legal act; sanction; ratify:
to confirm a treaty; to confirm her appointment to the Supreme Court.
4.
to make firm or more firm; add strength to; settle or establish firmly:
Their support confirmed my determination to run for mayor.5.
to strengthen (a person) in habit, resolution, opinion, etc.:
The accident confirmed him in his fear of driving.

No where there do you see the word "PROVE". We see lots of word like MORE FIRM, ADD STRENGTH, STRENGTHEN, ACCURACY, VALIDITY - all analogous terms.

God are you stupid

 

[Wyatt earp]

If the mafia don orders a hit, he's going to be prosecuted for it, and people are going to laugh if he claims he's being prosecuted for his "free speech".

Same with denier fraudsters.

This isn't about some brainwashed cult clown raving nonsense on a message board. You denier rubes here are all free to keep babbling deranged cult nonsense.

Exxon, in their own documents, said they knew global warming was real. And then they deliberately lied about it, to increase their own profits. That's racketeering, and it's illegal.

Lmfao, so if they told what they knew fool they wouldn't have record profits today?

God Damn you pulling. for straws.

 

[Crick]

They did not just fail to tell what they knew. They chose to actively lie about it and people that believed them have and will be harmed. That's the crime numbnuts.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

They did not just fail to tell what they knew. They chose to actively lie about it and people that believed them have and will be harmed. That's the crime numbnuts.

They did not just fail to tell what they knew.

Did they know about the recent pause? Did they know wind and solar are still unreliable and uneconomic?

They chose to actively lie about it and people that believed them have and will be harmed.

Sounds serious! Who was harmed? How do you know?

That's the crime

That's funny.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Hearsay? What a fucking maroon. You have no education, do you. 2-year degree in criminology?

Do you actually believe you're line of crap? I always thought you were a little smarter than that. It doesn't actually take much to realize mainstream science has a wee edge on the 11 whack jobs you've been pushing.

Hey fuck-tard, I spent 25 years in law enforcement. I retired with and masters in police sciences. I have moved on to atmospheric sciences and solar physics.

Your whole AGW premise is hearsay. You wont provide the proof of your assumptions. Your models don't pass simple empirical review and fail inside 10 years with 100% certainty. That doesn't fly in court. Thus getting you all to provide the evidence you say you have and the methods which you use to come to your conclusion, will be very enlightening for the public. Discovery and publishing it for all to see will be interesting indeed! there will be no hiding your lies and deceptions.

Now go back to your handlers and cry.. Your ignorance on every subject is astounding.

 

[IsaacNewton]

It is so comical. Denier Cultists devolve every single thread into 'show me this' blah blah.

Such is the nature of science....you can either show a thing to be true or you can not...clearly you can not.

10,000 PH.D's and 195 nations confirm Global Warming. The entire human race against you.

Confirmed? Confirm is one of those words that actually has a meaning....confirmed is defined as to establish the truth, accuracy, validity, or genuineness of; corroborate; verify...So us skeptics are asking for you to show us the actual observed, measured, quantified confirmation that AGW exists....if 10,000 phD's have confirmed AGW, there surely must be some observed, measured, quantified proof....where is it? You can't produce it..none of your warmer wacko buds can produce it. Do you think those 10,000 phD's are keeping it secret? Where is the evidence by which they confirmed the existence of AGW? Either you can produce it or you can't...if you can't, then to prove that you are a thinking person, you should be asking why you can't show it.

Hmm, who could possibly be right. There is no argument. You are like the handful of people that don't believe we actually landed on the moon. "Where's the proof". They use the same lame bullshit.

Hmmmm...why, if there are 10,000 phD's confirming the existence of AGW, can you not provide even one bit of observed, measured, quantified proof that it exists? That being the fact of the matter, there clearly is an argument....simply claiming that X number of somebody says that a thing is true is the lamest of all arguments. A couple of years ago, you could have found the better part of a million medical doctors who would have confirmed that stomach ulcers were caused by stress...there was no proof of the claim, but they would have still confirmed it...alas, however, they were wrong.....as science and the consensus so often are.

The rest of the human race has already provided the evidence, you just ignore it.

Stop the lying, reality is not a friend to you and is far too scary.

 

[Muhammed]

If the mafia don orders a hit, he's going to be prosecuted for it, and people are going to laugh if he claims he's being prosecuted for his "free speech".

Same with denier fraudsters.

This isn't about some brainwashed cult clown raving nonsense on a message board. You denier rubes here are all free to keep babbling deranged cult nonsense.

Exxon, in their own documents, said they knew global warming was real. And then they deliberately lied about it, to increase their own profits. That's racketeering, and it's illegal.

Exxon does not claim to be a scientific authority in the first place.

 

[Crick]

So what? Their scientists (who are) told them it was true. They accepted AGW because they aren't ignorant fools blinded by politics. They simply knew it was in their best interests to keep the public in the dark as long as possible and the best strategy for accomplishing that is to produce a fake controversy.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So what? Their scientists (who are) told them it was true. They accepted AGW because they aren't ignorant fools blinded by politics. They simply knew it was in their best interests to keep the public in the dark as long as possible and the best strategy for accomplishing that is to produce a fake controversy.

Their scientists (who are) told them it was true.

Told them what was true?

 

[Billy_Bob]

So what? Their scientists (who are) told them it was true. They accepted AGW because they aren't ignorant fools blinded by politics. They simply knew it was in their best interests to keep the public in the dark as long as possible and the best strategy for accomplishing that is to produce a fake controversy.

Their scientists (who are) told them it was true.

Told them what was true?

Consensus.... Hearsay... No proof... Just a bunch of so called scientists flapping their yaps.. 'But he told me, so it must be true'

 

[mamooth]

Nitwits, we're talking about Exxon's scientists telling Exxon global warming was true, and Exxon's own documents saying Exxon agreed, but would choose to lie about it.

Again, for the purpose of the law in this case, it doesn't matter if global warming theory is correct or not. The legal point is that Exxon believed global warming theory was correct, and that, for the sake of money, Exxon chose to lie to the public and say the opposite. That's a crime, racketeering and fraud.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Nitwits, we're talking about Exxon's scientists telling Exxon global warming was true, and Exxon's own documents saying Exxon agreed, but would choose to lie about it.

Again, for the purpose of the law in this case, it doesn't matter if global warming theory is correct or not. The legal point is that Exxon believed global warming theory was correct, and that, for the sake of money, Exxon chose to lie to the public and say the opposite. That's a crime, racketeering and fraud.

Nitwits, we're talking about Exxon's scientists telling Exxon global warming was true

That's awful! Did they say how long it had been warming?

The legal point is that Exxon believed global warming theory was correct,

And what's the law about global warming?

Exxon believed global warming theory was correct, and that, for the sake of money, Exxon chose to lie to the public and say the opposite.

The law says you can't do that? Link?

That's a crime

No it isn't.

racketeering

That requires an underlying crime. What law did they break?

and fraud

You need to find the legal definition of that word and show how it applies.

 

[mamooth]

Todd, best of luck with your very peculiar legal theories. Maybe you should start a law firm specializing in your "If I say fraud isn't a crime, it's not a crime, and I don't care what the legal system says!" defense.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Todd, best of luck with your very peculiar legal theories. Maybe you should start a law firm specializing in your "If I say fraud isn't a crime, it's not a crime, and I don't care what the legal system says!" defense.

best of luck with your very peculiar legal theories

You're the one making up crimes, not me.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Todd, best of luck with your very peculiar legal theories. Maybe you should start a law firm specializing in your "If I say fraud isn't a crime, it's not a crime, and I don't care what the legal system says!" defense.

If I say fraud isn't a crime, it's not a crime


Types of Fraud
There are many types of fraud offenses, several of which occur through the mail, internet, phone, or by wire. Common types include:
bankruptcy fraud
tax fraud (a.k.a. tax evasion)
Identity theft
insurance fraud
mail fraud
credit/debit card fraud
securities fraud
telemarketing fraud
wire fraud

Fraud - FindLaw

That's weird, I don't see anything about AGW fraud.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Fraud: The intentional deception for personal gain.

Intentional deception of a nonexistent and unprovable problem...???

I believe that the first problem for the alarmists is proving there was a harm... That requires empirical evidence...

 

[Wyatt earp]

Nitwits, we're talking about Exxon's scientists telling Exxon global warming was true, and Exxon's own documents saying Exxon agreed, but would choose to lie about it.

Again, for the purpose of the law in this case, it doesn't matter if global warming theory is correct or not. The legal point is that Exxon believed global warming theory was correct, and that, for the sake of money, Exxon chose to lie to the public and say the opposite. That's a crime, racketeering and fraud.

Did they lie under oath, did they lie before congress?

Did the lie cause bodily harm?

Did they lie to get a health care Bill passed that effected millions of people?



Can it be proven in court that man made C02 is warming the planet?

Can it be proven in court people would have stopped immediately using cars, burning fossil and oil based products. Strip naked , hunt buffalo and go live in a mud hurt if Exxon released it's findings at the time to the public?

 

[Wyatt earp]

Fraud: The intentional deception for personal gain.

Intentional deception of a nonexistent and unprovable problem...???

I believe that the first problem for the alarmists is proving there was a harm... That requires empirical evidence...

I just read your post after I posted mine, yup how they going to prove a harm?

 

[mamooth]

Title 18 of the US Code, section 1001 states that it is a crime to lie to any federal agency, provided the lie is material to the subject of that agency. That includes the SEC. Hence, if a company states in their annual reports that all is rosy when they actually know their fossil fuel business model is doomed, that is such a lie, hence it is criminal.

Now, if you clowns still want to pretend otherwise, you are free to do so, but everyone will consider you to be cranks.

Meanwhile, the Attorney General for the US Virgin Islands has issued a subpoena to the denier think tank CEI, demanding all of their communications and records for the past 20 years. Using the denier standard of "Well, if they've got nothing to hide, they should gladly make everything public!", I expect the deniers here to demand that CEI comply with the subpoena, instead of fighting it, as CEI has announced they will do.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Title 18 of the US Code, section 1001 states that it is a crime to lie to any federal agency, provided the lie is material to the subject of that agency. That includes the SEC. Hence, if a company states in their annual reports that all is rosy when they actually know their fossil fuel business model is doomed, that is such a lie, hence it is criminal.

Now, if you clowns still want to pretend otherwise, you are free to do so, but everyone will consider you to be cranks.

Meanwhile, the Attorney General for the US Virgin Islands has issued a subpoena to the denier think tank CEI, demanding all of their communications and records for the past 20 years. Using the denier standard of "Well, if they've got nothing to hide, they should gladly make everything public!", I expect the deniers here to demand that CEI comply with the subpoena, instead of fighting it, as CEI has announced they will do.

That includes the SEC.

They needed to tell the SEC in the 1980s that their product was going to cause global warming? Why?

Hence, if a company states in their annual reports that all is rosy when they actually know their fossil fuel business model is doomed,

Annual reports are about company business, not about predictions of future warming, changing or extremering. Why is their business model doomed?

Meanwhile, the Attorney General for the US Virgin Islands has issued a subpoena to the denier think tank CEI, demanding all of their communications and records for the past 20 years.

For what the purpose?

Using the denier standard of "Well, if they've got nothing to hide, they should gladly make everything public!"

Unless they're accused of misusing public funds or some other crime, that AG can suck it.