Compare and Contrast

The left cheers when their elected officials go after private energy companies, demanding that those companies provide reams of evidence which will be scoured for anything that can be painted as incriminating (or just bad public relations when leaked to the friendly press).

Liberty Law SiteWhat is the power of an attorney general to pry into private papers? Earlier this month, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman issued a subpoena to Exxon, demanding that the company turn over many of its records, so that he could investigate it for fraudulent statements about the climate. Many Americans cheered. The subpoena, however, comes with constitutional dangers.

The constitutional dangers are very real, but the left seems blind to them. However, suddenly those constitutional dangers are very important when Congress wants to investigate whether scientists at NOAA have been manipulating the climate data that they use to panic the public about global warming.

So is this just a case of sauce for the good being good for the gander, whether the gander likes it or not? What's the difference between the two cases?

The difference is simple. Exxon is a private company engaging in presumptively behavior, providing a product that millions of people find useful and voluntarily purchase. NOAA is engaging in research with public funds obtained through taxation, stands accused of using those funds to mislead the public, and (thanks to their public funding) is subject to Congressional oversight as to how they spend that money. Which includes reading the emails they sent to each other as part of that research, to evaluate whether or not the research is fraudulent.

The price of taking money from the government to advance your political agenda is that government oversight can look over your shoulder. It's long past time the government funding for global warming "research" came with this kind of oversight.

It is also worth noting that the Left has also demanded years worth of records and data from those scientists who testified before Congress on the uncertainties and skeptical viewpoints of climate change. They are obviously desperately hoping to find a payoff from an oil company somewhere, because they cannot attack those scientists on their actual science.

This entry was published Sat Dec 19 11:15:47 CST 2015 by TriggerFinger and last updated 2015-12-19 11:15:47.0. [Tweet]

comments powered by Disqus

Subscribe to Atom Feed

I am not a lawyer, and nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice.

This site is run on custom blog software and is being actively developed. Please be forgiving of errors.

This website is an Amazon affiliate and will receive financial compensation for products purchased from Amazon through links on this site.