Terrorists with Kalashnikov rifles change the environment quicker than CO2
Only a few short days ago, Secretary of State John Kerry reasserted the administration’s position that climate change was an increasing national security risk.
Speaking at the Ted Constant Convocation Center at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Kerry said he’s made addressing climate change a priority of U.S. foreign policy.
“The reason I made climate change a priority,” Kerry said, “is not simply because climate change is bad for the environment. It’s because by fueling extreme weather events undermining our military readiness, exacerbating conflicts around the world, climate change is a threat to the security of the United States and, indeed, to the security and civility of countries everywhere.”
Furthermore, the Secretary of the Army offered “developing effective energy solutions” as a key priority.
In the wake of the Paris terror attacks, these attitudes must now be deemed completely ludicrous.
However, such hyperbole is indicative of the overall movement to criminalize climate change denial and suppress the dissemination of information that refutes the dire predictions of eco-activists that are used to promulgate regulations and impose fees.
I recently reported that two Congressmen accused ExxonMobil of lying about climate change data in the same way cigarette companies hid the real hazards associated with smoking. They threatened a federal investigation.
Now, New York’s Attorney General has begun a formal investigation into the matter.
According to people with knowledge of the investigation, Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman issued a subpoena Wednesday evening to Exxon Mobil, demanding extensive financial records, emails and other documents.
The investigation focuses on whether statements the company made to investors about climate risks as recently as this year were consistent with the company’s own long-running scientific research.
The people said the inquiry would include a period of at least a decade during which Exxon Mobil funded outside groups that sought to undermine climate science, even as its in-house scientists were outlining the potential consequences — and uncertainties — to company executives.
The firm is denying the allegations.
An analysis of the likely outcome indicates that the driving motivator might not be climate justice . . . but money.
Even if Schneiderman discovers enough evidence to bring a case, a lawsuit may not be what he has in mind. Some of the biggest successes under the Martin Act have come as large settlements. The law was used by Eliot Spitzer, a former New York attorney general, to help win a $100 million settlement with Merrill Lynch in 2002 over broker conflicts of interest, as well as a $1.4 billion accord with 10 of the country’s largest securities firms over stock research.
Schneiderman also drew on the Martin Act in helping to negotiate multibillion-dollar joint federal-state settlements with big banks, including JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America, over mortgage-backed securities.
If Exxon “were to really fight this out to the very end, I think they would have a pretty good case,” Spindler said. But “probably everybody would be happy with a settlement. Companies tend to be very risk-averse.”
I sure hope ExxonMobile picks up the gauntlet that Schneiderman has thrown down. If a government bureaucrat can bully large corporations about how they use the data they collect to help their businesses under the banner of “criminal climate change” behavior, then nobody is safe from similar indictments.
A Rasmussen poll recently revealed that 68% of Americans rejected the idea of prosecuting people who denied “climate change” policies. However, 17% were keen to do just that . . . and I am sure many of them are found on the Mizzou campus.
In April of this year, Obama talked about battling a fantasy crisis that has been created by poor science and even worse policy:
One hopeful sign that people are beginning to recognize the real risks to themselves comes is that a Paris webcast of an all-star marathon event about climate change was suspended after the deadly attacks. Former Vice President Al Gore was slated to host the event.
Now, there is a poll to determine if the upcoming United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris should be canceled because of the realities of real national security risks.
Clearly, Kalashnikov rifles in the hands of Islamic terrorists change the environment much more swiftly than carbon dioxide.DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.