# Should fossil fuel companies be held liable for RICO violations due to organized climate denial? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 21, 2015, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fossil-fuel-companies-be-held-liable-for-rico-violations-due-to-organized-climate-denial/735312 "2015-10-21T01:32:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2015, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fossil-fuel-companies-be-held-liable-for-rico-violations-due-to-organized-climate-denial/735312/81 "2015-10-21T19:38:43Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > The only new discoveries seem to be the political motivations of the GOP leadership. That seems to be one of the few discoveries that they’ve actually announced. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2015, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fossil-fuel-companies-be-held-liable-for-rico-violations-due-to-organized-climate-denial/735312/82 "2015-10-21T19:52:56Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Haven’t the pro global warming zealots been able to present their own “evidence” of what might happen in the future? I assume that people can still looks at all sides of the issue and make up their own minds. What is it about the presentations of the pro-global warming zealots that the public finds so unbelievable? Don’t know that they do. If you find the opinions of “zealots” difficult to accept, does that mean you approve of disinformation campaigns that promote a view you find acceptable? Put baldly, if we are so wrong, how come they have to lie? ---
**Author:** ![madsircool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/madsircool/32/3432_2.png) [@madsircool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/madsircool)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2015, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fossil-fuel-companies-be-held-liable-for-rico-violations-due-to-organized-climate-denial/735312/83 "2015-10-21T19:53:46Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > The only new discoveries seem to be the political motivations of the GOP leadership. You are new to Congressional politics, aren’t you? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2015, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fossil-fuel-companies-be-held-liable-for-rico-violations-due-to-organized-climate-denial/735312/84 "2015-10-21T19:55:06Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Spreading disinformation is not a crime. A crime against humanity, perhaps, but I don’t see The Hague prosecuting this sort of case quite yet. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2015, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fossil-fuel-companies-be-held-liable-for-rico-violations-due-to-organized-climate-denial/735312/85 "2015-10-21T20:07:02Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Don’t know that they do. If you find the opinions of “zealots” difficult to accept, does that mean you approve of disinformation campaigns that promote a view you find acceptable? Put baldly, if we are so wrong, how come they have to lie? If everyone believes what the pro-global warming zealots have been saying, then the issue is settled. Right? I mean, all of the changes demanded by pro-global warming zealots would have been enacted already. Right? The voters have spoken. For the last 25+ years, I’ve repeatedly heard that “the science is settled”, but there still seems to be questions about the issues. Maybe the science isn’t settled, yet? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2015, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fossil-fuel-companies-be-held-liable-for-rico-violations-due-to-organized-climate-denial/735312/86 "2015-10-21T20:11:54Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > A crime against humanity, perhaps, but I don’t see The Hague prosecuting this sort of case quite yet. Did you mean a crime agains The Humanities? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2015, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fossil-fuel-companies-be-held-liable-for-rico-violations-due-to-organized-climate-denial/735312/87 "2015-10-21T20:15:41Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Haven’t the pro global warming zealots been able to present their own “evidence” of what might happen in the future? I assume that people can still looks at all sides of the issue and make up their own minds. What is it about the presentations of the pro-global warming zealots that the public finds so unbelievable? Thank you for proving my point. Here are the pertinent and fascinating things about the above statements: [ul] [li]“Pro-global warming zealot” is used as a euphemism for “climate scientists who study climate change as a career and actually know something about it”[/li][/ul] [ul] [li]The allegation that there are “sides” to the basic AGW question – the “side” represented by scientific fact, and the “side” represented by the oil companies[/li][/ul] [ul] [li]That in making public policy we simply get to choose the “side” we like best, as both the factual side and the fantasy side are equivalently valid[/li][/ul] [ul] [li]A goodly portion of the American public – and Congress critters on the Republican side – apparently much prefer the oil company “side” of the argument[/li][/ul] The whole idea that the problem of anthropogenic global warming can be characterized as “sides” in a “debate” is a fabrication of the relentless fossil fuel industry disinformation campaign. In light of what scientific assessments like those of the IPCC and the National Academy of Sciences actually say, based on the vast preponderance of scientific literature from the last 35 years, this is really a pretty stunning indictment of what the fossil fuel industry has been able to accomplish in its propaganda campaign. The oil companies have long been in the forefront of this sordid effort, with the coal companies and energy-intensive heavy industry not far behind. Thus strongly suggesting a positive response to the question of the OP. The question isn’t whether the fossil fuel industry has been lying to public for decades, and even to Congress – the question is whether it technically meets the evidentiary requirements of RICO. It should at least be tested. ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2015, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fossil-fuel-companies-be-held-liable-for-rico-violations-due-to-organized-climate-denial/735312/88 "2015-10-21T20:39:58Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Haven’t the pro global warming zealots been able to present their own “evidence” of what might happen in the future? I assume that people can still looks at all sides of the issue and make up their own minds. What is it about the presentations of the pro-global warming zealots that the public finds so unbelievable? I don’t know about any “pro global warming zealots” (is that some sort of religion or something?) but, aside from those people, the scientific community is pretty damned close to unanimous that our activities are causing, and will continue to cause, heating of the atmosphere. As to what the public finds so unbelievable, why are you asking us? You seem to be part of the subset of the public that doesn’t accept the science. Don’t you know why you find it so unbelievable? You tell us. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2015, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fossil-fuel-companies-be-held-liable-for-rico-violations-due-to-organized-climate-denial/735312/89 "2015-10-21T20:43:31Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > If everyone believes what the pro-global warming zealots have been saying, then the issue is settled. Right? I mean, all of the changes demanded by pro-global warming zealots would have been enacted already. Right? The voters have spoken. Yes. The same way we cured cancer as soon as everyone agreed it was bad. ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2015, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fossil-fuel-companies-be-held-liable-for-rico-violations-due-to-organized-climate-denial/735312/90 "2015-10-21T20:44:55Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > A crime against humanity, perhaps, but I don’t see The Hague prosecuting this sort of case quite yet. This brings up an interesting question. The US may or may not be able to bring some sort of charges, but we’re talking about huge _multi-national_ corporations. Is it possible that they could be prosecuted somewhere with different laws, perhaps some European country? ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2015, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fossil-fuel-companies-be-held-liable-for-rico-violations-due-to-organized-climate-denial/735312/91 "2015-10-21T21:39:42Z")
> [@davidm](#): > > I don’t know about any “pro global warming zealots” (is that some sort of religion or something?) but, aside from those people, the scientific community is pretty damned close to unanimous that our activities are causing, and will continue to cause, heating of the atmosphere. > > As to what the public finds so unbelievable, why are you asking us? You seem to be part of the subset of the public that doesn’t accept the science. Don’t you know why you find it so unbelievable? You tell us. Hahahaha. If YOU want to change the status quo, then maybe YOU’ll need to come up with a more convincing argument. The issues of global warming/climate change has been discussed in many other threads. This thread is about using RICO laws to sue/charge oil companies for making a more convincing argument than you seem to be able to. Should ExxonMobil be held liable for RICO violations? ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2015, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fossil-fuel-companies-be-held-liable-for-rico-violations-due-to-organized-climate-denial/735312/92 "2015-10-21T21:58:44Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Hahahaha. If YOU want to change the status quo, then maybe YOU’ll need to come up with a more convincing argument. > > The issues of global warming/climate change has been discussed in many other threads. This thread is about using RICO laws to sue/charge oil companies for making a more convincing argument than you seem to be able to. Should ExxonMobil be held liable for RICO violations? You’re the one who muddied this thread by going on about “pro climate change zealots”. This is the same tactic we’ve been discussing in the “Stupid Gun News” thread - derail the conversation from the subject at hand with ad hominems and loaded language. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2015, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fossil-fuel-companies-be-held-liable-for-rico-violations-due-to-organized-climate-denial/735312/93 "2015-10-21T22:09:29Z")
> [@davidm](#): > > You’re the one who muddied this thread by going on about “pro climate change zealots”. This is the same tactic we’ve been discussing in the “Stupid Gun News” thread - derail the conversation from the subject at hand with ad hominems and loaded language. Should ExxonMobil be held liable for RICO violations? You may wish to discuss the “Stupid Gun News” thread, or complain about the use of the term “pro climate change zealots”, but… well, you know, RICO? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2015, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fossil-fuel-companies-be-held-liable-for-rico-violations-due-to-organized-climate-denial/735312/94 "2015-10-21T22:13:46Z")
Perhaps you should read the two and half pages where it’s already under discussion, and try contributing something of substance. ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2015, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fossil-fuel-companies-be-held-liable-for-rico-violations-due-to-organized-climate-denial/735312/95 "2015-10-22T01:07:43Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Should ExxonMobil be held liable for RICO violations? > > You may wish to discuss the “Stupid Gun News” thread, or complain about the use of the term “pro climate change zealots”, but… well, you know, RICO? I’m not the one who derailed this thread. Juvenile terms like “pro climate change zealots” are deliberately provocative ad hominems that add nothing of substance to the conversation, so don’t try to turn this around and make me the disruptor. Now, let’s get back to discussing the subject of this thread and let’s do it like adults. ---
**Author:** ![Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spectre_of_pithecanthropus/32/12343_2.png) [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2015, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fossil-fuel-companies-be-held-liable-for-rico-violations-due-to-organized-climate-denial/735312/96 "2015-10-22T01:32:02Z")
I’m against it. To hold the fuel companies accountable here would be tantamount to declaring that they should be our go-to source for unbiased data on the products they sell. And that would say nothing good about how well-informed we expect the average citizen to be, or how willing voters will be to inform themselves. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2015, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fossil-fuel-companies-be-held-liable-for-rico-violations-due-to-organized-climate-denial/735312/97 "2015-10-22T03:12:31Z")
> [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](#): > > I’m against it. To hold the fuel companies accountable here would be tantamount to declaring that they should be our go-to source for unbiased data on the products they sell. And that would say nothing good about how well-informed we expect the average citizen to be, or how willing voters will be to inform themselves. Actually, as the tobacco case showed, an eventual settlement (not a conviction) does take away a mayor corruption influence that is being injected into our politics; in the form of groups funded by fossil fuel groups and individuals that create twisted works of science. Works that then the politicians (that they also control) use to stop needed reforms. > **[Soon and Baliunas controversy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soon_and_Baliunas_controversy)** > > The Soon and Baliunas controversy involved the publication in 2003 of a review study titled Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the past 1000 years, written by aerospace engineer Willie Soon and astronomer Sallie Baliunas and published in the journal Climate Research. In the review, the authors expressed disagreement with the hockey stick graph and argued that historical temperature changes were related to solar variation rather than greenhouse gas emissions as was the position of the Th... > [@](#): > > When the McCain-Lieberman bill proposing restrictions on greenhouse gases was being debated in the Senate on 28 July 2003, Senator James M. Inhofe made a two-hour speech in opposition. He cited a study by the Center for Energy and Economic Development and the Soon and Baliunas paper in supporting his conclusion: “With all of the hysteria, all of the fear, all of the phony science, could it be that man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people? It sure sounds like it.”[34][35] > > Inhofe convened a hearing of the United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works held on 29 July 2003, examining work by the small group of researchers saying there was no evidence of significant human-caused global warming. Three scientists were invited, Mann giving testimony supporting the consensus position, opposed by long term skeptics Willie Soon and David Legates.[34][36] The Soon and Baliunas paper was discussed. Senator Jim Jeffords read out an email dated 28 July. In it, von Storch announced his resignation, and stated “that the review of the Soon et al. paper failed to detect significant methodological flaws in the paper. The critique published in the Eos journal by Mann et al. is valid.” In reply, Mann testified about the Soon et al. paper, “I believe it is the mainstream view of just about every scientist in my field that I have talked to that there is little that is valid in that paper. They got just about everything wrong.”[13][36] He later recalled that he “left that meeting having demonstrated what the mainstream views on climate science are.”[37] > [@](#): > > Questions have also been raised about funding for the paper. Soon and Baliunas “was in part underwritten by $53,000 from the American Petroleum Institute, the voice of the oil industry”.[42] > > Also, the additional sources of funding mentioned in the papers were apparently unrelated to the research presented in Soon and Baliunas 2003 and in Soon et al. 2003: both the Air Force Office of Scientific Research and NASA stated that they had provided funds for work on solar variability, not for work related to proxy climate records as discussed in the papers, while the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said it had not provided funds for the research.[24] Air Force Office of Scientific Research, Grant AF49620-02-1-0194, deals with Theory and Observation of Stellar Magnetic Activity,[43] and NASA grant NAG5-7635 studies variability of stars.[44] When questioned during the 29 July 2003 Senate hearing, Soon said that the NOAA grant for Soon et al. was awarded to David Legates, and the papers, showing research into detailed patterns of local and regional climate variability, were directly relevant to his main goal of research on physical mechanisms of the sun-climate relationship. When asked if he had been “hired by or employed by or received grants from organizations that have taken advocacy positions with respect to the Kyoto Protocol, the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, or legislation before the U.S. Congress that would affect greenhouse gas emissions”, he responded “I have not knowingly been hired by, nor employed by, nor received grants from any such organizations described in this question.”[36][45] > > Connections between the paper’s authors and oil industry groups have been well documented. Soon and Baliunas were at the time paid consultants of the George C. Marshall Institute.[46] Soon has also received multiple grants from the American Petroleum Institute between 2001 and 2007 totalled $274,000, and grants from Exxon Mobil totalled $335,000 between 2005 and 2010.[47] Other contributors to Soon’s research career include the Charles G. Koch Foundation, which gave Soon two grants totaling $175,000 in 2005/6 and again in 2010, and coal and oil industry sources such as Mobil Foundation, the Texaco Foundation and the Electric Power Research Institute.[48] Soon has stated that he has “never been motivated by financial reward in any of my scientific research.”[45] > > Soon’s co-authors Craig D Idso and Sherwood B Idso have also received industry funding. They have been linked to Western coal interests, and the ExxonMobil Foundation provided a grant of $15,000 to their Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change in 2000.[49] ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2015, 6:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fossil-fuel-companies-be-held-liable-for-rico-violations-due-to-organized-climate-denial/735312/98 "2015-10-22T06:30:03Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > I don’t see much point in criminal proceedings, it would merely provide gainful employment to battalions of lawyers. I just want the facts. I want to know who signed off on this and who, if anyone, spoke against it. … > > I just want them to explain it to me, tell me why. Ok, so we have the DOJ write a memo. Then the Democrats call for Congressional hearings. That’s where we could get subpoenas (or more likely accusations of a Republican coverup.) One hearing or at the most two should do it; we don’t need 11. First done without any plea agreements, then done with if appropriate. Presumably everyone will be aware that the only thing that could send the executives to jail would be perjury. > [@davidm](#): > > This brings up an interesting question. The US may or may not be able to bring some sort of charges, but we’re talking about huge _multi-national_ corporations. Is it possible that they could be prosecuted somewhere with different laws, perhaps some European country? Maybe, but I understand that RICO is considered pretty aggressive by international standards. OTOH, US free speech protections are pretty high as well. ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2015, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fossil-fuel-companies-be-held-liable-for-rico-violations-due-to-organized-climate-denial/735312/99 "2015-10-22T15:59:11Z")
Yes, and I like the free speech protections, regardless of how I might feel about the behavior of the oil companies. That said, even here those protections aren’t absolute. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2015, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fossil-fuel-companies-be-held-liable-for-rico-violations-due-to-organized-climate-denial/735312/100 "2015-10-22T18:04:03Z")
> [@davidm](#): > > I’m not the one who derailed this thread. Juvenile terms like “pro climate change zealots” are deliberately provocative ad hominems that add nothing of substance to the conversation, so don’t try to turn this around and make me the disruptor. > > Now, let’s get back to discussing the subject of this thread and let’s do it like adults. Hahahaha. You’ve solved the pro climate change zealots believability problem. It’s not their actual failure to convince the public but the use of the term “zealots” that has led to their failure to convince the public. :smack: Can RICO be used against the oil companies? \*C. Injury “by reason of” a Section 1962(b) Violation Just as a civil plaintiff must show injury caused “by reason of” the defendant’s investment to prevail under section 1962(a), a plaintiff must show injury “by reason of” the defendant’s acquisition or control of an interest in a RICO enterprise to prevail under section 1962(b). 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c); Advocacy Organization for Patients and Providers v. Auto Club Ins. Ass’n, 176 F.3d 315, 329 (6th Cir. 1999); Crowe v. Henry, 43 F.3d 198, 205 (5th Cir. 1995). Injury flowing from defendants’ predicate acts is alone not enough to confer standing under section 1962(b). Lightening Lube, Inc., 4 F.3d at 1190. “Such an injury may be shown, for example, where the owner of an enterprise infiltrated by the defendant as a result of racketeering activities is injured by the defendant’s acquisition or control of his enterprise.” Casper v. Paine Webber Group, Inc., 787 F.Supp. 1480, 1494 (D.N.J.1992). In addition, the plaintiff must establish that the interest or control of the RICO enterprise by the person is as a result of racketeering. Banks v. Wolk, 918 F.2d 418, 421 (3d Cir. 1990)\*. > **[1962(a) & (b) Claims](https://ricoact.com/?page_id=82)** > > Legitimate civil RICO claims under sections 1962(a) & (b) are few and far between. Although frequently alleged, very few survive a motion to dismiss. For this reason, there is a dearth of case … Even Eubanks states that she can’t provide enough evidence for the DOJ to file charges against oil companies. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fossil-fuel-companies-be-held-liable-for-rico-violations-due-to-organized-climate-denial/735312.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-fossil-fuel-companies-be-held-liable-for-rico-violations-due-to-organized-climate-denial/735312.md?page=6)