Dear Attorney General Walker:
You wrote in April, “According to multiple reports, ExxonMobil publicly maintained that the causes and impacts of climate change could not be predicted, while privately ExxonMobil knew — and acted upon — its own research showing that climate change was both real and could be modeled. If true, these statements could violate Virgin Island laws barring consumer and securities fraud, as well as CICO [the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act].”
Attorney General Walker, you and your co-conspirators in RICO-20 are seriously confused, sadly misinformed and wasting more taxpayer money. ExxonMobil is correct that the causes and impacts of climate change can not be predicted. You have no admissible real world evidence as to the cause or impacts of climate change. So far, no one can predict the climate, therefore no one can predict the possible impact of unknown climate.
Consider for example Obama chief science adviser John Holdren’s claim that anthropogenic global warming is causing cooling. Pressured to disclose his evidence by a Freedom of Information Act suit, Holder’s office admitted he has no evidence to support his claim.
The fact that climate change is real and the fact that climate can be modeled are both well known facts. The fact that Exxon knew these well known facts is not enlightening nor does it in any way conflict or contradict with the other well known facts that the cause and impacts of climate change cannot be predicted. Hundreds of climate models have been created costing billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars. So far, none of these models has been able to predict real world climate with acceptable statistical accuracy. Mr. Walker, you and a few scientists may believe that it will be warmer next year, but you do not know that. It is not a fact. Even when known values of historical conditions are entered into the best available climate models, the models fail to predict the correct temperature. Yes, as you suspect and ExxonMobil knows, climate can be modeled, Mr. Walker, but the models don’t work correctly. Models are hypothetical.
Mr. Walker, what court of law will allow a hypothetical to be introduced as evidence? Even more so a hypothetical which has a track record of producing the wrong answer?
Mr. Walker, since you filed your subpoena against ExxonMobil based partly on securities law, did you consider the fact that if anyone actually could predict the climate, then in short order that person could be easily the world’s wealthiest person? In the futures, options and other derivatives markets that person could make their fortune on commodities which are dependent on climate. Why would they waste their time making speeches for $100,000 per hour or filing government grants or running a green non-profit organization? They could click a few keys on their computer and become the first quadrillionaire…that is, if they could accurately model climate.
Mr. Walker, if you insist on using unconstitutional legal processes, then you should be using your warrant-less subpoena power to investigate the fraud being actively perpetrated on you and all Americans by those people taking taxpayer money, billions of dollars each year, by spreading false alarms based on hypothetical models which those fraudsters know fail the tests of science and statistics.
There you have it Mr. Walker: the exculpatory evidence to exonerate ExxonMobil and the inculpatory evidence to prove the guilt of climate alarmists. All you and your conspirators need to know is (1) Who knew? (2) when did they know it? and (3) How much money did each of them defraud from the American taxpayer?