There’s a lot of buzz lately over a letter from some US academics asking for prosecution of those questioning consensus climate science. It is proposed that this offense can be considered as organized crime under the RICO legislation: the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
One commenter (h/t Hans Erren) at the Climate Etc. Discussion said:
Wikipedia defines a racket as: A racket is a service that is fraudulently offered to solve a problem, such as for a problem that does not actually exist, that will not be put into effect, or that would not otherwise exist if the racket did not exist. Conducting a racket is racketeering. Particularly, the potential problem may be caused by the same party that offers to solve it, although that fact may be concealed, with the specific intent to engender continual patronage for this party.
Clearly the academics (many of whom are not physical scientists) missed their target. The IPCC fits perfectly the definition of a racket and could be pursued under RICO. Though I don’t think the courts are qualified to settle this or any science.
Still, “If the Glove Fits, You cannot Acquit!”
Science Matters 
All credit goes to Lubos Motl for first citing the wikipedia definition of Racket.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The problem is that those who support climate do not use a dictionary for definitions. What is more, everybody who is anybody automatically knows the true meaning of words. So anybody who does not know, or disagrees, is automatically a nobody.
LikeLike
I think I follow you. As Alinsky said, define the terms and you control the debate. So CO2 is “carbon” which the uninformed think is soot and undesirable. And in the climate debate, it is the few people who have promoted this dangerous warming notion who claim that their numerous opponents should be silenced or punished.
LikeLike