ON FRIDAY THE ASTUTE BLOGGERS SUGGESTED A CLASS ACTION SUIT BE FILED AGAINST GORE ET AL; TODAY OTHERS AGREE

TAB ON FRIDAY:

* A CLASS ACTION SUIT SHOUD BE FILED AGAINST THE FRAUDSTERS ON BEHALF OF EVERYONE WHOSE TAXES OR FEES WENT UP AS A RESULT OF THE FRAUD AND WHO PURCHASED CARBON CREDITS OR SWAPS.

* AND AS PART OF THE SUIT, THEY SHOULD GET ALL OF AL GORE'S EMAILS.

AND ALL THE EMAILS FROM THE AUTHORS OF THE IPCC.

VIA WEASEL ZIPPERS TODAY: Founder Of The Weather Channel And 30,000 Other Scientists Wanting To Sue Al Gore For Global Warming Fraud:


*******UPDATE: SOME NOW SUGGEST A RICO SUIT IS VIABLE - AFTER ALL, THERE MAY HAVE BEEN A CONSPIRACY FOR OVER A DECADE TO DEFRAUD THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF MONEY:

If what we are seeing unfold is evidence of fraud, a RICO complaint is a possibility, along with what the “discovery” process would reveal. The email and data authors (and massagers, playing “tricks” with the data to “hide the decline” in temperatures) do appear to be true believers in their cause, and often in their data, neither of which is dispositive. They also are candid in ways triggering tortuous arguments explaining how those words don’t really mean what they say. The defenders say the literal readings – that’s plural, not a one-off remark – represent “sinister interpretations” (New York Times), and the implausible is actually the appropriate reading.

For example, we’re now, for the first time, told that calling something the researchers did with data a “trick” to “hide the decline” in temperatures is actually very typical application of common lingo about scientific methods purporting to represent findings. This is the first I have encountered in this context a benign meaning for that. This defense might have currency had not the actions in question already been exposed by private investigations and being, in fact, a “trick” “hiding the decline” in temperatures.

The U.S. taxpayer has much exposure here in the joint projects and collaborations which operated in reliance upon what the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit was doing, on the data CRU have been denying access to and recently claiming simply, if again implausibly, to have lost. As well as on the taxpayer-funded IPCC process, and the peer-review process addressed in these emails as having been corrupted with a particular outcome in mind. Also, there are U.S. taxpayer-funded offices and individuals involved in the machinations addressed in the emails, and in the emails themselves.

The plain reading of what has been revealed so far, if the documents are indeed authentic as a blanket admission yesterday seemed to make clear, does give the appearance of a conspiracy to defraud, by parties working in taxpayer funded agencies collaborating on ways to misrepresent material on which an awful lot of taxpayer money rides. In fact, their centers and careers and reputations ride on there being a “global warming” crisis, or at least there being some semblance of acceptance thereof.