PDA

View Full Version : Randall Carlson



R.K. Locke
02-07-2015, 10:17 PM
This is a really fascinating presentation from a recent episode of the Joe Rogan Podcast. Highly recommended:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0Cp7DrvNLQ


His previous appearance on the same show is also very much worth a watch:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R31SXuFeX0A


It covers everything from geology/catastrophism to sacred geometry and climate change.

R.K. Locke
02-12-2015, 09:28 PM
A couple more interesting videos:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWQPgIlXHlk&feature=youtu.be



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybqfKeemOUk

R.K. Locke
05-22-2015, 08:34 PM
Randall Carlson on esotericism and The Great Work:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sT6mTUcX6Dc

David Guyatt
05-23-2015, 06:51 AM
He never got around to detailing the 1776 profound occult operation that he started his presentation with? I guess it was to do with the Illuminati?

And he didn't seem to get around to explaining what it is that he, as a Grail knight, should do to balance things?

Which is a bit of a pity, I think.

PS, the secret of the "Great Work" has been shouted from the rooftops, as he claimed though. It's just that no one is listening and even fewer really care or want to know.

R.K. Locke
06-04-2015, 08:37 PM
He never got around to detailing the 1776 profound occult operation that he started his presentation with? I guess it was to do with the Illuminati?

And he didn't seem to get around to explaining what it is that he, as a Grail knight, should do to balance things?

Which is a bit of a pity, I think.

PS, the secret of the "Great Work" has been shouted from the rooftops, as he claimed though. It's just that no one is listening and even fewer really care or want to know.


I agree re: the editing. I wish I could find the full version of this video but it doesn't seem to be online at the moment. I will keep digging.

For what it's worth, I also assumed that he was talking about the Illuminati, but I suppose there are other possibilities. 1776 was a particularly spooky year, all things considered.

I would be interested to hear your interpretation of the meaning of Great Work if you have the time and inclination to elaborate.

R.K. Locke
11-20-2015, 11:38 PM
Graham Hancock and Randall Carlson on the Joe Rogan Podcast:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDejwCGdUV8

Lauren Johnson
11-21-2015, 04:47 AM
These guys are talking about my backyard. I lived in Wenatchee. I have studied the history of the ice age floods. They are well understood and have been thoroughly documented. They were caused by a periodic blocking of the Clark Fork River by the ice sheet. Every few decades the ice dam is washed out and the entire Glacial Lake Missoula drains out in two or three days across northern Idaho, western and central Washington state and out the Columbia River Gorge. Some boulders were deposited in the Willamette Valley in Oregon as the ice bergs melted. Apparently, later science has proven a small Glacial Lake Columbia which was formed by the ice sheet in north central Washington, which also periodically flooded.

The theories were first proposed by Harlen Bretz in 1923 to ridicule by his geology peers, who were committed to the idea that catastrophes only happened in the Bible. It took several decades for his theories to be considered proved. Now, research continues as his ideas are expanded and refined.

Yes, these were cataclysmic events, but they were limited to Montana, Idaho, Washington, and Oregon. It was not one cataclysm caused by comets hitting the earth. These guys are lying.

The floods are called the Missoula Floods or the Bretz Floods. Here is a website about this fascinating story: http://www.iafi.org/floods.html

https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=7765&stc=1

R.K. Locke
11-21-2015, 10:47 AM
I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that they are "lying". There are plenty of other possibilities to be considered in that regard. Given that this is only a podcast, it would be probably be fairer to read what he writes in his book (wherein he apparently cites peer-reviewed studies) before writing them off as liars or bullshit artists.

Drew Phipps
11-21-2015, 04:27 PM
Graham Hancock wrote a book "Footprints of the Gods" about a global catastrophe, so you might guess that he would interpret everything in view of proving his own theory. The book is interesting in its own right; however, he has a writer's agenda, so listen with a grain of salt.

R.K. Locke
11-21-2015, 07:40 PM
Graham Hancock wrote a book "Footprints of the Gods" about a global catastrophe, so you might guess that he would interpret everything in view of proving his own theory. The book is interesting in its own right; however, he has a writer's agenda, so listen with a grain of salt.


It was called Fingerprints of the Gods but I think you are right about his interpretive approach. If you listen to the podcast, though, you will see why he does that. He presents quite a compelling case. I'm not convinced that he's correct but it will be interesting to see how things develop as new evidence is uncovered.

He does also address Harlen Bretz' work directly at around the 1hr:50 mark. To the layman (i.e., me) the Hancock/Carlson hypothesis seems to make more sense than the currently accepted version of events.

Lauren Johnson
11-21-2015, 09:02 PM
RKL: I woke up at 3am thinking I shouldn't have called them liars. I am glad to see they cite Bretz at the place Drew most kindly pointed out. I wouldn't have made that far. I think they misuse Bretz by saying that he said it was one flood, as opposed to many. His theory was preliminary. A geologist friend who met Bretz said he didn't follow up on this idea. He went on to other things leaving other geologists to do the research. Saying the current accepted explanations are compromises is just not fair. If there were to be a compromise, it would be to combine the Bretz flooding events with the comet idea. I am agnostic about that. At sometime, I will watch and read more stuff on these guys. Thanks for putting this up.

Finally, i can't express enough how amazing the Eastern Washington landscape is. If you have the time and can afford it, buy the geo-location guidebooks and take a tour. It is amazing. BTW I have stood at Dry Falls many times and gaped in wonder at it.

Drew Phipps
11-21-2015, 11:59 PM
It is said that Einstein once hypothesized about crustal slippage. that is was caused by the unequal weight distribution occasioned by the uneven buildup of large ice masses near, but not directly centered on, the geographical poles. Like a top, unequal weight distribution rotating about the center might cause a shift in the rotation, or a slippage in the crust, to equalize the weight about the axis.

I believe Einstein eventually concluded that even the abnormally large ice caps wouldn't weigh enough to produce the effect.

Peter Lemkin
11-22-2015, 10:00 AM
He is a very interesting and engaging thinker and speaker. He is correct that impacts from space may have played a role in sudden climate changes throughout time at a greater rate than is now generally acknowledged. He is correct that the Earth and the Sun have cycles of warning/cooling that have gone on long before humans burned fossil fuels. However, after listening to him and being very interested and informed on a few things, DO NOT AGREE - IN FACT FIND DANGEROUS his views that aside from pollution, the burning of fossil fuels [and other human activities] are not responsible for the majority [overwhelming majority] of the current climate change! Sorry! I have trained in Environmental Science to the doctoral level, taken courses in climate science, and also have a hobby of reading about and collecting meteors and other impacts from space; and another interest in ancient civilizations. He is conflating some misunderstood and/or under-studied things [such as floods and rapid climate change due to extra-planetary impacts] and the notion that ipso facto humans don't drastically effect the atmosphere, oceans and climate - as well as other factors. Not convinced by that part of his diatribe at all! ::face.palm::

R.K. Locke
11-25-2015, 09:10 PM
RKL: I woke up at 3am thinking I shouldn't have called them liars. I am glad to see they cite Bretz at the place Drew most kindly pointed out. I wouldn't have made that far. I think they misuse Bretz by saying that he said it was one flood, as opposed to many. His theory was preliminary. A geologist friend who met Bretz said he didn't follow up on this idea. He went on to other things leaving other geologists to do the research. Saying the current accepted explanations are compromises is just not fair. If there were to be a compromise, it would be to combine the Bretz flooding events with the comet idea. I am agnostic about that. At sometime, I will watch and read more stuff on these guys. Thanks for putting this up.

Finally, i can't express enough how amazing the Eastern Washington landscape is. If you have the time and can afford it, buy the geo-location guidebooks and take a tour. It is amazing. BTW I have stood at Dry Falls many times and gaped in wonder at it.


FWIW, I am not totally sold on their theory, but then I am not a geologist or archaeologist, so I am largely having to trust my instincts on this one. I'm quite impressed by the variety of evidence that they have put together, but I would also be interested to see it rigorously challenged by other scholars and researchers. An honest, Socratic debate around this subject would be fascinating, I think.

R.K. Locke
11-25-2015, 09:11 PM
He is a very interesting and engaging thinker and speaker. He is correct that impacts from space may have played a role in sudden climate changes throughout time at a greater rate than is now generally acknowledged. He is correct that the Earth and the Sun have cycles of warning/cooling that have gone on long before humans burned fossil fuels. However, after listening to him and being very interested and informed on a few things, DO NOT AGREE - IN FACT FIND DANGEROUS his views that aside from pollution, the burning of fossil fuels [and other human activities] are not responsible for the majority [overwhelming majority] of the current climate change! Sorry! I have trained in Environmental Science to the doctoral level, taken courses in climate science, and also have a hobby of reading about and collecting meteors and other impacts from space; and another interest in ancient civilizations. He is conflating some misunderstood and/or under-studied things [such as floods and rapid climate change due to extra-planetary impacts] and the notion that ipso facto humans don't drastically effect the atmosphere, oceans and climate - as well as other factors. Not convinced by that part of his diatribe at all! ::face.palm::


What do you make of this latest video from Corbett, Peter:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQqPQ0i_fl0

Peter Lemkin
12-02-2015, 10:24 AM
Look, I have spent years studying this matter at graduate school level as part of my formal studies - and in the decades afterwards. Even if global warming and climate changes were not anthropogenically driven [which I firmly believe science proves they are], even if it were not due to humans - but to something else WE WOULD STILL HAVE TO FIGHT TO DO ANYTHING/EVERYTHING TO REVERSE OR LESSEN THE EFFECTS - OR PERISH.

Look who you are getting into bed with on this: the major corporations and banks; the oligarchy worldwide; the rightwing thinktanks; the oil corporations; the coal and gas corporations; and groups and individuals like that. Just one specific example:

Since 1997, Koch, who heads the oil and manufacturing conglomerate Koch Industries, has also provided at least $79 million in funding to groups that deny climate change and thwart government policies that would address it.

Yes, massive volcanic activity (such as the Decan Traps in India), and meteor strikes have caused sudden climate change in the past. Have you noticed any of either in the last several hundred years? No. This huge spike in CO2, Methane, and other greenhouse gases, causing global heating, climate change, ocean acidification, megadeath and changes of the biota are human driven.

Again, even if they were not, to save humanity and most other creatures on the Planet, we must do all we can to mitigate and negate the changes! Even those who for reasons most climate scientists do not 'buy' believe it is not humans causing this should still be on the same side as those who do to lessen the change and the horrible consequences. If you want to just throw up your hands and say it is out of human control [both cause and mitigation]....then rather than being part of the solution, you are part of the problem. IMHO.

Magda Hassan
12-02-2015, 01:22 PM
https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=7782&stc=1

Lauren Johnson
12-02-2015, 05:01 PM
What do you make of this latest video from Corbett, Peter?

If others don't mind, I have been thinking about this question.

Corbett is just flat wrong about AGW.

This is how I understand his general direction. The globalists have created the false science of AGW to advance their agenda towards global domination. Yes, the world is warming but it is largely not caused by the insignificant gas CO2. It's absurd on the face of it. But by corrupting climate science by various means, they have created this mythological chimera threatening human existence.

So, that is his main point. CO2 is trivial. Duh!

Then there's that hockey stick. Once again, he correctly points out that when the graph is displayed from zero, you see the relatively tiny fluctuation of global average temperatures. What's the big deal?

Well, climate science does indeed say that small fluctuations in average temperature do indeed have huge effects, and their science I find quite persuasive. But then, this begs the question of how do they know what ancient climate was like. Corbett claims that it is based on tree rings. My understanding is that a bigger source of data comes from sophisticated analysis ice core samples taken from very ancient ice on Greenland and Antarctica. This is correlated with lots of other data, like for example tree rings.

I would agree to the extent that globalists would certainly try to benefit from the climate crisis. But jumping from that to denying climate science is just pathetic. F. William Engdahl does the same thing.

R.K. Locke
12-02-2015, 08:47 PM
Well, there is a lot to be said in response to these three posts so I will have a stab at it. I am, of course, not a climate scientist, but I am certainly equipped to spot logical fallacies and dubious assumptions.

Re: Peter's post: with respect, "I'm a climate scientist" and "look who you're getting into bed with" are not really arguments. You could be 100% correct, in your claims but you're not exactly going to prove them like that. Your first comment is an appeal to authority and the second one is equally true from the other side of the argument. See:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5ZgR_-SO8U


Your comments about volcanic activity etc. are not really valid because Carlson and Corbett bot say that human activity does affect the climate. They would be crazy not to. What they are critiquing is the manipulated science (see the video) that is being used to support the AGW arguments and the wider agenda being implemented as a result of it. If you can legitimately critique the claims in the video--or other such claims of manipulation/selectivity--then I would certainly be interested to read that. I am open-minded about the subject.


Re: Magda's picture: the simple response is to ask why the ruling class should be trusted to implement any of those things in the interest of the people. Where is the historical evidence for that being a valid assumption? Why is scepticism about the intentions of Gates, Rockefeller etc. suspended over this issue alone?


Re: Lauren's post, I don't really understand what "denying climate science" means. They aren't denying it; they are critiquing it. That is entirely healthy. If their reasoning or methodology is faulty then they should be pulled up on that, but in all the replies on this thread I have yet to see any evidence of why they are wrong. Where are they getting it wrong? There is lots of specific information in the Corbett video (with links) but nothing much in the criticisms that I'm seeing here.


The funny thing is, I am 100% on board with the idea of conservation and protecting the environment. When Peter says "Even if global warming and climate changes were not anthropogenically driven... WE WOULD STILL HAVE TO FIGHT TO DO ANYTHING/EVERYTHING TO REVERSE OR LESSEN THE EFFECTS" I couldn't agree more. So we are effectively on the same team where that is concerned. We are just miles apart (or so it seems) on how this issue should be approached.

Lauren Johnson
12-02-2015, 10:29 PM
Re: Lauren's post, I don't really understand what "denying climate science" means. They aren't denying it; they are critiquing it. That is entirely healthy. If their reasoning or methodology is faulty then they should be pulled up on that, but in all the replies on this thread I have yet to see any evidence of why they are wrong. Where are they getting it wrong? There is lots of specific information in the Corbett video (with links) but nothing much in the criticisms that I'm seeing here.

RKL: No, I don't think they are critiquing it. When I hear Corbett say that changes in CO2 levels won't change global average temperatures, he is denying one of the most fundamental principles of climate science. He said this on one of his broadcasts with a dismissive tone. That is far beyond being a critique.

Secondly, he referred to his complaints of the hockey stick graph as accurate but revealing how he fundamentally once again refuting a basic understanding of global climate after decades of research. In other words, the truncated hockey stick graph in fact demonstrates what is physically happening with the planet. Small changes have big effects on life on planet earth.

So, I would be more than happy if you want to put up some of the stuff you find compelling or at least interesting here. My with my.

Magda Hassan
12-03-2015, 04:56 AM
Well, there is a lot to be said in response to these three posts so I will have a stab at it. I am, of course, not a climate scientist, but I am certainly equipped to spot logical fallacies and dubious assumptions.

.........

Re: Magda's picture: the simple response is to ask why the ruling class should be trusted to implement any of those things in the interest of the people. Where is the historical evidence for that being a valid assumption? Why is scepticism about the intentions of Gates, Rockefeller etc. suspended over this issue alone?




The ruling class will never do anything that is not also in their interest. If the people can benefit from it as well, well all and good. But they wont do it because it is the right thing to do or because it will benefit the most people. Their class interests dictate that they will always put their interests first. Sometime our interests overlap. Survival being one. So they wont do it for us but they will do it for themselves. And in this case we can push for our mutual interests. The business of renewables is another. A better business model and new opportunities for some cappos than old fossil fuel cappos still holding on to their fading privileges and it gets the ruling class fighting against each other and not us for a change. We can support the progressive change and if the circumstances are right the change can even be pushed dialectically to something completely new and revolutionary.

R.K. Locke
12-03-2015, 07:05 PM
Well, there is a lot to be said in response to these three posts so I will have a stab at it. I am, of course, not a climate scientist, but I am certainly equipped to spot logical fallacies and dubious assumptions.

.........

Re: Magda's picture: the simple response is to ask why the ruling class should be trusted to implement any of those things in the interest of the people. Where is the historical evidence for that being a valid assumption? Why is scepticism about the intentions of Gates, Rockefeller etc. suspended over this issue alone?




The ruling class will never do anything that is not also in their interest. If the people can benefit from it as well, well all and good. But they wont do it because it is the right thing to do or because it will benefit the most people. Their class interests dictate that they will always put their interests first. Sometime our interests overlap. Survival being one. So they wont do it for us but they will do it for themselves. And in this case we can push for our mutual interests. The business of renewables is another. A better business model and new opportunities for some cappos than old fossil fuel cappos still holding on to their fading privileges and it gets the ruling class fighting against each other and not us for a change. We can support the progressive change and if the circumstances are right the change can even be pushed dialectically to something completely new and revolutionary.


I hope you're right.

R.K. Locke
12-03-2015, 07:18 PM
Re: Lauren's post, I don't really understand what "denying climate science" means. They aren't denying it; they are critiquing it. That is entirely healthy. If their reasoning or methodology is faulty then they should be pulled up on that, but in all the replies on this thread I have yet to see any evidence of why they are wrong. Where are they getting it wrong? There is lots of specific information in the Corbett video (with links) but nothing much in the criticisms that I'm seeing here.

RKL: No, I don't think they are critiquing it. When I hear Corbett say that changes in CO2 levels won't change global average temperatures, he is denying one of the most fundamental principles of climate science. He said this on one of his broadcasts with a dismissive tone. That is far beyond being a critique.

Secondly, he referred to his complaints of the hockey stick graph as accurate but revealing how he fundamentally once again refuting a basic understanding of global climate after decades of research. In other words, the truncated hockey stick graph in fact demonstrates what is physically happening with the planet. Small changes have big effects on life on planet earth.

So, I would be more than happy if you want to put up some of the stuff you find compelling or at least interesting here. My with my.


I'm not aware of which video you're referring to in your first paragraph. Is it the one I linked earlier? If so I will have to re-watch it.

I don't really follow what you're saying in the second paragraph. The first part of it doesn't make any sense to me. I think you're right that small changes can have big effects, but life on earth has endured through periods of warming and cooling in the past. My position is that it is hugely important to remain sceptical vis-a-vis the effects of capitalism on climate science (and all types of science for that matter), as well as the intentions of the incredibly rich and powerful people who are pushing this idea. If the science is sound then manipulations and obfuscations should not be necessary imo.

Finally, just to reiterate, I believe that we are on the same page when it comes to issues of conservation and pollution. I just think we need to make sure that we keep the bigger picture in mind.

Lauren Johnson
12-03-2015, 07:47 PM
My position is that it is hugely important to remain sceptical vis-a-vis the effects of capitalism on climate science (and all types of science for that matter), as well as the intentions of the incredibly rich and powerful people who are pushing this idea. If the science is sound then manipulations and obfuscations should not be necessary imo.

I agree 100%.

My view is that AGW is very real and a major threat. My problem with well meaning people like Corbett is his ignorance disguised as skepticism.

HOWEVER, the fundamental business model of global, financial capitalism to make money breaking something, for example, countries, the planet, etc. Step two is to make money fixing it. From that POV, AGW offers endless opportunities to accumulate capital.

What global elites are not pushing is the idea that wealthy people need to be less wealthy and live in a much simpler life. They avoid and suppress the notion of a class struggle. So we are hearing how global corporations are going to save the planet. ::shock::

Magda Hassan
12-04-2015, 12:06 AM
What global elites are not pushing is the idea that wealthy people need to be less wealthy and live in a much simpler life.

That's right. It's not them. They are doing their bit. Some thing...Some where.......Like buying scientists to come up with great schemes like carbon sequestration. But you need to take personal responsibility for your showers which are probably too long and have you changed ALL your light bulbs? Well have you !? What have you actually done to help the planet today? It's your individual responsibility to save the planet and it is your fault if it gets fucked up. But you still have your obligations to capitalism to keep consuming. Can I interest you in these low watt globes? Or perhaps this low flow shower head?

Lauren Johnson
12-04-2015, 12:27 AM
That's right. It's not them. They are doing their bit. Some thing...Some where.......Like buying scientists to come up with great schemes like carbon sequestration. But you need to take personal responsibility for your showers which are probably too long and have you changed ALL your light bulbs? Well have you !? What have you actually done to help the planet today? It's your individual responsibility to save the planet and it is your fault if it gets fucked up. But you still have your obligations to capitalism to keep consuming. Can I interest you in these low watt globes? Or perhaps this low flow shower head?

We're all in this together!!! ::hookah::

Peter Lemkin
12-04-2015, 04:38 AM
AMY GOODMAN: As we turn right now to the oil giant Exxon Mobil. It's under criminal investigation in New York over claims it lied to the public and investors about the risks of climate change. Now Exxon is fighting back against the journalists who exposed how Exxon concealed its own findings dating back to the 1970s that fossil fuels cause global warming, alter the climate, and melt the Arctic ice. Students at Columbia Journalism School collaborated with The Los Angeles Times on two of the exposés. Exxon accused the students of producing inaccurate and misleading articles. In its complaint, Exxon also referred to the "numerous and productive relationships" Exxon Mobil has with Columbia. Exxon has donated nearly $220,000 to the school. On Tuesday, Steve Coll, the Dean of the Columbia Journalism School, responded to Exxon's critique written to Columbia's president after an extensive review. Coll wrote, "Your letter disputes the substance of the two articles in a number of respects, but consists largely of attacks on the project's journalists. I have concluded that your allegations are unsupported by evidence. More than that, I have been troubled to discover you have made serious allegations of professional misconduct in your letter against members of the project even though you or your media relations colleagues possess email records showing your allegations are false," Coll wrote.
Well, our guest Bill McKibben, cofounder of 350.org. He was arrested after staging a one-man protest at his local Exxon station in Vermont. He held a sign reading, "This pump temporarily closed because ExxonMobil lied about climate." Bill McKibbon, you are a journalist yourself. Talk about the significance of ExxonMobil writing this letter of complaint to the president of Columbia University, Lee Bollinger, who then turned the letter over to Steve Coll, also a leading journalist, who did an investigation of Columbia Journalism School students.
BILL MCKIBBEN: So, Exxon is never very subtle and this was a particularly heavy-handed instance of it. Their letter to Columbia can only be described as thuggish. It carried every kind of implication about how they would do one thing or another to them if they did not get satisfaction. But I think they might think twice before they do it again. The letter that came back from Steve Coll at Columbia was a six page masterpiece of dissection. It sort of shows what happens when real reporters go up against PR people. It was remarkable, Amy.
These stories, I mean, this is just Exxon trying to kick up smoke around the edges. There's no problem with the stories. They're incredibly powerful and incredibly true, and so salient to where we sit today. If Exxon had told the truth about what it knew 25 years ago, we would not be needing to have COP21. We would have sometime around COP3 or four really got down to work as a planet. And this problem wouldn't be solved yet, but we would not have wasted 25 years in funny debate.
AMY GOODMAN: And we did an extensive look at this on Democracy Now! on the investigation of both Inside Climate News, the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalistic organization and The Los Angeles Times, which, of course, has won many Pulitzers. But the evidence that - they had top scientists. They were deeply concerned about this, doing very good work, and saw climate change as real. But then what happened?
BILL MCKIBBEN: Well, then they, instead of acting on their knowledge, they instead set up the architecture of denial and disinformation. There was a remarkable piece that came out, a study that came out in Nature, yesterday, documenting the fact that money from Exxon and the Koch brothers constituted the sort of epicenter of denial. This was one of those big data analyses that traced the links between thousands of different organizations and newsletters and front groups and they traced it back to Exxon. That's why the Secretary of State, yesterday, John Kerry, in a pretty rare moment, in Rolling Stone really let loose on Exxon and said that it was - if these allegations were true, it was worse than the tobacco industry and a betrayal of everything it meant to be a responsible corporation.
AMY GOODMAN: And the significance of the New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman launching a criminal probe into ExxonMobil?
BILL MCKIBBEN: Well, you can be sure that Exxon is taking it seriously because, yesterday, they hired one of the most expensive lawyers in the country, Theodore Wells, most recently famous for having written the Deflategate report about the New England patriots in last year's football season. Theodore Wells, from Paul Weiss Rifkind in New York, is now Exxon's - on retainer for Exxon to try and battle these allegations. But, good luck to them because the evidence, down there black and white, is pretty stunning. Remember, at the best, no one is saying - the best that anyone is saying that Exxon was merely reprehensible, not outright criminal. That is the best defense that anyone has mounted for them so far.
AMY GOODMAN: So we're not talking about a civil probe, we're talking about a criminal probe. This good land Exxon officials in jail?
BILL MCKIBBEN: Well, who knows? At the moment, they're just subpoenaing documents. We're still at the beginning stages of this. And of course, the great hope is that other attorney generals, Kamala Harris in California, for instance, will, we hope join in at some point and that the department of justice - 360,000 American's have petitioned the Department of Justice, asking them to investigate Exxon.
AMY GOODMAN: And on the issue of ExxonMobil writing the letter to the president of Columbia University, in it mentioning the amount of money they have given to Columbia, do you see this as attack on freedom of the press?
BILL MCKIBBEN: Oh, I mean, who knows what precisely they had in mind, but Exxon has attacked the freedom of thought of an entire planet for 25 years. They knew the truth and they did it. They told people things that they knew not to be true. There is no more devastating attack on the freedom of thought than that.